You're viewing a single thread.
So this was paid for and published by Commintern, The Communist International, also known as the Third International which operated from 1919 to 1943. This was published in the 1930s while Joseph Stalin was in charge.
The fact that some people would post this unironically when the person who sent this message was notorious for the iron-fucking-curtain is beyond stupid.
It’s 2025 today. The messsge is the same but with a different context.
Maybe instead of leaning on the message of fascists you could express your concerns in some other way. One that doesn't degrade yourself in the process. Like making your own comics with your own words.
The communists werent fascist, they were communist.
I didn't think I'd need to say that but here we are.
The 1930s USSR was squarely under the rule of Joseph Stalin, a brutal dictator. It was a time of mass starvation and persecution.
Yes. And communist, fascist, and dictator mean 3 very different things. I used to think they were synonymous, too, but they’re not.
Communist and fascist are polar opposites. Authoritarian is the extremes of both sides. A dictator can exist at any point in the spectrum, and isn’t unique to any side.
It really does help if we can agree what words mean.
Communist means something different but the USS Fucking R certainly belongs with the other two.
Of course. Many nations have been 2 of the three. But nobody has ever been all 3, because 2 are antithetical to one another.
e: obv the USSR was communist and authoritarian. Who said they weren’t?
Looks like you know your prayers.
"That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it."?
I’m not defending anything. You seem too defensive for this conversation, if that’s what you think. (Judging by you downvoting my comments before you even reply, that’s becoming obvious.)
Can you actually define the words you’re using, even to yourself? Or are you lashing out at me based on what you feel they mean?
I’m willing to talk to you, but only if we can agree upon what words like ‘socialism’ mean. If not, we’ll only talk past each other, and I think you’ll agree that will waste both of our time.
Authoritarian is not fascism. It is a component, but communism and fascism are not even close to synonymous.
There was one famine from mismanagement, and Stalin wasn't a great guy but this shit is really overblown.
Are you trying to say that authoritarianism is a component of fascism, but fascism isn't the only type of authoritarianism? 'Cause that's not super clear from your wording.
Yes
The USSR was a fascism because it was a central dictatorship with violent tendencies. The actual definition of the term.
That's not the definition of the term, by any ones analysis. The simplest, original definition is that fascism is state and corporate power combined. Like the US has been for half a century.
Didn't the state own all the corporations in the USSR? How would that not be state and corporate power combined?
There were no corporations in the ussr. There were business, not multi regional conglomerates.
And even then the purpose of a corporation is to profit. That is it's sole goal.
yunxiaoli, you've been made a complete fool of.
Not really, you're the one that is just taking all 1.67 inches of capitalist dick while trying to redefine fascism away from Mussolini's definition so you can protect the status quo you have been sold as 'not perfect but the best we've come up with'.
Capitalism and liberalism have always lead to fascism. They are the only ideologies to ever develop into fascism. Socialism and communism, maybe even anarchism are the only future humanity has. Humanity can't coexist with capitalists long term.
Google is free dude.
Google doesn't cost money, but it's not free.
Google is evil. Use another search engine instead.
https://european-alternatives.eu/alternative-to/google-search
Authoritarian is the word you're looking for, not fascist.
I'm surprised the comments seem to be defending authoritarianism like it's any more acceptable than fascism. "Stalin may have had millions of people killed and fueled the negative reputation of communism world wide for nearly a century, but at least he wasn't a fascist.". I don't seem to understand why democratic social ownership is considered a worse alternative than letting a centralized tyrannical government harm people unchecked.
I’m not defending anything like that, but:
-
Authoritarian != communism. Authoritarianism applies equally to communism and fascism. The latter two describe ideology, where ‘authoritarian’ describes scale. Your sentence is like if I said I I use reds, not apples, in my pies. It sort of makes sense, but not really.
-
You said: ‘I don't seem to understand why democratic social ownership is considered a worse alternative’ yes, exactly! That’s socialism, which is an economic – not a political – system. You can combine that with democracy or communism or fascism.
I really recommend you learn what all these terms mean, because it’s not only super fascinating, but we can each understand and communicate better when we can build upon common concepts.
I've been a democratic socialist for years. Communism is not an authoritarian belief, it is a socioeconomic model separate from that concept. Stalinist Communism -in practice- was an absolutely authoritarian dictatorship with well documented hardship suffered by the Russians, that people for some reason can't seem to unhook from actual proper communism and will defend to the death in a fit of tribalist rage as if all communism is good communism. I chose to define Democratic Socialism rather than use the term intentionally, because I felt like just blurbing it out would come across as a buzzword. I'm not opposed to communism and would prefer socialism, but I am absolutely not going to advocate for Stalinist Communism.
I don't know, the thing annoying me about the tread is everyone is correcting the person by saying "They're Communist, not Fascist!" instead of saying that it was "Authoritarian rather than Fascist". I feel like framing it in the latter way unhooks the term from authoritarianism, but also doesn't preclude it from possibly becoming authoritarian like any other socioeconomic system. I feel like the prior framing gave the impression that Stalinist Communism had nothing to do with authoritarianism in general, which I will absolutely disagree with. Stalinist Communism was absolutely not Fascism, but it was absolutely an Authoritarian Dictatorship and I don't appreciate the implication that it wasn't.
I don't know if any of that makes sense, I have a hard time articulating my points. Feel free to critique and thank you for the conversation.
-
Words have meanings - if people start calling left-leaning authoritarians "fascists" and no one corrects them, the red-hats will never understand how to differentiate; or why to differentiate.
"shooting a home invader and killing the neighbor next door are both violent killings, so we should classify them both as murder" - you, probably.
I'm using the definition of fascism as it relates to dictator advocacy. I know that confuses a lot of people who associate socialism with left and fascism with right, but it is proper use of the term.
The etymology is rooted in Italian authoritarianism from root words meaning a political gathering of men.
Who has defined fascism as such? How do the practices of Stalinism root in Italian authoritarianism?
Defining fascism as any form of authoritarianism broadens the term so much as to render it useless.
It’s useful to be able to talk about the ways in which the ideologies which governed Franco’s Spain and Mussolini’s Italy are more similar to each other than say, something like the DPRK under Juche. If we want to refer to something as authoritarian, we already have the word authoritarian.
Source?
Maybe you sound like a fascist telling me what to say or think and you should eat shit.
lol
I mean, have you met art?
OP is a tankie, and an exceptionally uneducated one at that.
Yeah lemmy.ml is leaking again
Is there a way to block all users from an instance? Blocking the instances just seems to hide their communities
On the other hand, could you also argue that dismissing something out of hand because the person who made it worked for a publication that aligned itself with a philosophy that was being used by a country that was being led by a bad man, well, kind of stupid too?
But tell us how you feel about Tesla owners......
Tesla was a great company that, as Musk's direct involvement grows, gets worse and worse by the moment. The Cybertruck is basically his version of "The Homer" - a car designed by someone who knows nothing about cars.
I have nothing against Tesla owners - people are allowed to like what they like :)
No.
This is malfeasance etched into paper. The intent was by people who wished us harm.
Imagine if you started quoting a leader of the KKK because even though hes a hateful violent asshole maybe some cherrypicked quotes seemed innocent. Do you think you would be well recieved?
Brother, capitalists are using the power that capitalism gave them to destroy the planet, public institutions, and democracy around the global and you are still repeating the pro-capitalist / anti-communist Nazi lies from 80 years ago???
The USSR was nonstop greed and corruption, sabre-rattling with Nuclear Weapons until it imploded and gave way to its current capitalist form, fuck off.
Now Russia is nonstop greed and corruption, sabre-rattling with Nuclear Weapons under capitalism, so completely different!
Indeed, their words were empty if not for their malice.
But that isn't the same thing at all. These are not Stalin's words.
If you buy into the McCarthyism "Red Scare" nonsense, then fine, but remember that the only lives McCarthy ruined were those of Americans, and with one possible exception*, all of whom were innocent of any actual wrongdoing.
*Alger Hiss maintained his innocence to his death, and the evidence against him is dubious at best.
Pretty sure the historical consensus is that Julius Rosenberg was likely involved if not Ethel.
No, you're right, I stand corrected. Although I don't know how much that had to do with McCarthy himself or the Un-American Activities Committee - it was an FBI investigation trail that had already begun before McCarthy kicked off with all his nonsense.
I think without the hysteria, it wouldn’t have been death penalty and they wouldn’t have got Ethel. I should be citing sources but from what I remember all of the stuff Julius got to the Soviets was minor/stuff they already knew.
If these words weren't condoned by Stalin and his goons the writers would have been flogged, tied to a post, and shot if they were lucky. These words and this drawing were sketched by the will of his administration.
Man's freedom is lacking if somebody else controls what he needs, for need may result in man's enslavement of man.
— Muammar Gaddafi
Thank you for the context. The desperation about current (fascist) extreme-right politics really makes some people swing so hard towards the left they just end up with another flavour of fascism.
(I know the horseshoe theory is garbage, please don't @ me about it)
The best propaganda is the truth. The capitalist press was and is actively lying to you, and when they do tell a truth that goes against capital interests they get punished for it.
That the Soviets were doing the same thing is just another example of why only anarchists are cool and smart 😎
[Response copied and pasted from a crosspost that copied and pasted the comment this is in response to]
My current opinion is, a message can be good or bad regardless of the source. That can have exception when there's hidden implication of support for evil deeds (ex. all lives matter). In this case, I can recognize the truth in this message that still resonates today and don't see the implication of support for the entirety of Stalin's actions. Also, bringing up the iron curtain is actual pretty ironic, given that was about isolationism and this comic is (at least on the surface) anti-isolationist.
My current opinion is, don't align yourself with dictators and you won't get called out for promoting authoritarian hellscapes.
Lol that's actually a bad opinion. You absolutely will get called out for promoting authoritarian hellscapes by supporting neo-liberal politicians who are not dictators. You may not agree with the call out, but it will still happen.
This counterrevolutionary talk will get you sent to gulag.
And revolutionary talk will get you sent to prison to be slave labor for a private prison industry.
The Cheka will send you to the gulag for any talk they please.
Can you tell me an example of someone in the USA being imprisoned for revolutionary talk alone?
Just recently someone was made an example of by saying "Deny, Delay, Depose" on a phone call. However, you'll know that revolution is inherintly violent as those with the means won't give them up without violence. Calls for violence are not covered under free speech, no matter the context.
But regardless what people are imprisoned for, the US disproportionately imprisons far more people per capita than any other developed nation. 4% of the world's people, 25% of the world's prison population is in the United States. We do it to perpetuate slavery through a loophole in the constitution. We do gulag shit man.
But regardless what people are imprisoned for
That was sorta the specific topic here
I already addressed it in the first paragraph
It just seems funny to say "regardless of the topic at hand", is all I'm saying
It's more to hammer home the point that "even assuming that isn't true", which you could possibly nitpick minutia and hand-wring about the point made. I followed it up to assume your framing and explain why it's still fucked regardless.
I would've expected the discussion to argue over whether it is true or not. Now it just seemed like stepping to other topic, but with a funny self-aware phrase.
Well I thought it was funny at least. Nothing really to add to your debate though.
Reminds me of this quoted exchange I read in Stalin's biography recently. Situation is Stalin being increasingly irritated with Molotov, his long-time comrade and lashing out at a meeting, in 1941 (before the war)
Stalin did not conceal his disapproval of Molotov. He very impatiently listened to Molotov’s rather prolix responses to comments from members of the Bureau.… It seemed as if Stalin was attacking Molotov as an adversary and that he was doing so from a position of strength.… Molotov’s breathing began to quicken, and at times he would let out a deep sigh. He fidgeted on his stool and murmured something to himself. By the end he could take it no longer:
“Easier said than done,” Molotov pronounced in a low but cutting voice. Stalin picked up [Molotov’s] words.
“It has long been well-known,” said Stalin, “that the person who is afraid of criticism is a coward.”
Molotov winced, but kept quiet—the other members of the Politburo sat silently, burying their noses in the papers.… At this meeting I was again convinced of the power and greatness of Stalin. Stalin’s companions feared him like the devil. They would agree with him on practically anything
I'm willing to bet everyone in that meeting almost drowned in the irony but also deathly afraid to say anything
Ima just leave this here... WaPo OpEd to publish OEd that agree with Bezos
Ah you're right, we should all get together and protest this by agreeing with Hitler or something. /sarcasm
Last time I checked the history books, it was the Soviet Union under Stalin that rolled into Berlin. You can't even see your own cognitive dissonance over calling the person that literally fought Hitler, Hitler? Plus, you've done nothing to address the fact that the cartoon you posted is literally true and posted on the same front pages of Lemmy? You've clearly been subjected to some wild capitalist bullshit. My condolences.
Yes I'm sure the Soviets went out of their way out of the goodness of their hearts to fight the nazis. It definitely wasn't a brawl between two beasts sharing a predatory territory wherein to the victor went the spoils.
Ad hominem attack - "this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself"
Don't you know that Hitler was against the ad hominem, I can't take serious advice from someone who sides with Hitler
/godwin
Not only are you completely wrong about what fascism is, you are arguing that since the Comintern, an international committee, published a political cartoon, that Stalin personally made and published it single-handedly. This is stupid, there is no way that Stalin could personally run around and do everything the government did in the Soviet Union. That would be a practically superhuman feat.
And yet he craved central control of everything