• CalipherJones@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 minutes ago

    Sad to say, but humans are the root of evil. Atrocities have been done in the name of all sorts of things, but it’s always humans carrying it out.

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 minutes ago

      So maybe we should switch to systems that represent everyone equally, with equal and fair democratic representation, so that when evil inevitably arises it can be squashed.

  • nico198X@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    46 minutes ago

    @[email protected] i feel like you’re dancing around the issue of authoritarian abuse and centralization of power.

    you can’t seriously defend the DPRK Il regime as being good for the workers.

    do you think it’s good that Xi has made himself president for life? Is that the mark of a functioning democratic system of the people?

    my biggest issue with Leftists is their seeming need to defend totalitarians instead of just writing them off and admitting, “ok, yeah, they suck, but communism could still work!”

    • darthelmet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 minutes ago

      It’s not really about defending the bad stuff. It’s about trying to get some more nuance on perhaps the most propagandized topic of the 20th century.

      There are all sorts of interesting discussions to have about the various failings of these countries amongst other leftists who have the relevant context as a starting point for a reasonable discussion.

      But when talking to libs/conservatives, they’re coming into the conversation with an already extremely warped, in nuanced perspective. “These are all evil dictatorships that were also super incompetent and that shows why communism is bad.”

      Some of the stuff they base this on is either exaggerated or just straight up wrong. Some of it is completely valid criticism, but without the context to understand the issue or provide a useful critique.

      How do you have any meaningful conversation about these countries without acknowledging things like:

      • All of these countries were precious agrarian, un-democratic societies.
      • Most of them were formerly exploited colonies who had to fight fairly brutal wars for their independence.
      • Even after leaving, the imperialists kept messing with them through economic and diplomatic isolation and espionage including supporting right wing coups.

      We don’t have the counterfactual where we see what these countries would have turned out like without these challenges, but it’s an incomplete analysis to not at least consider the ways which they impacted both their economic success and their political developments. Maybe you could argue there were better ways to respond to all of this, but hindsight is 20-20.

      No actual leftists want to have to argue “authoritarianism was good actually.” But it’s hard for the conversation not to appear that way when we’re arguing with people who’ve been conditioned to think they’re somehow as bad or worse than Nazis and ending the thought there.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 minutes ago

        Great comment! You hit the nail on the head, proper conversation requires a factual starting point, and just conceding to conservatives and other anticommunists off the bat just so they are less hostile to you just hands them free rhetorical wins on that very basis.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      38 minutes ago

      I’m not dancing around anything, if you want to discuss, then please, do so.

      The DPRK is far from a paradise, but at the same time, much of its issues are externally driven.

      Xi is not president for life. Term limits are removed, but he can also be removed. He’s overwhelmingly popular among the party and people.

      For your last point, I recommend you read Marketing Socialism. I defend what is misrepresented or demonized unjustly, because these are problems every Socialist project recieves, to varying degrees.

      • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        19 minutes ago

        Authoritarianism and imperialism, concentration of power are the root cause, money is just a symbol of power, under stalinist russia this nefarious corrupting power had another symbol, shape but this society was just as helpless toward this tendency of power, you can see the end point of passive demobilisation and assassination of the few how dare oppose it today in Russia.

        I think there needs to be constant pressure of deterritoroalisation, of putting decision and responsibility in the hands of the people, always at the smallest scale that it can be realistically pushed down.

        And that’s not the individual if that’s not an individual matter. The level at which decisionnal responsibility is dependant on the context of tgat decision rather than agglomerated bodies of decision when power naturallies tries to concentrate.

        It should always be easy for lower echelons of power and locality to repatriate a delegated aspect of their life.

        (Then I stuffed this line of thinking into chatgpt to take it further)

        https://chatgpt.com/share/6803f4ba-eebc-8005-919f-3b896dce2e0f

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 minutes ago

          I don’t think you’ve actually backed up your thesis, just asserted it. There’s no evidence to the notion that “power corrupts,” there’s evidence that systems like Capitalism reward corruption.

        • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 minutes ago

          I think the concept of positive/negative externalities could serve as a north star in deciding the all important question of the appropriate scalevat which a discussion is taken.

          While I think we shoild try to empower and give autonomy to the local they always are within a larger community of externalities. The local should also no to inform and defer to a higher scale when their decision is “larger then them”.

          The local is not thought as isolated or unaccountable, but it is given preference as a scale. We want the local to choose how to live in harmony with the whole and their neighbours.

          All this is well but it would be really easy to fall back into the grooves of individualist isolationnist and collectivist absolutist.

          I don’t think the ideal exist at the middle of these extremes but rather toward tge lower scale without bottoming out

      • nico198X@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 minutes ago

        i read your Marketing Socialism post. It just seems beside the point and is looking for a way to justify itself when all you have to do is admit that tyranny and gulags bad. It’s not a big ask. The fact that it is TAKEN to be a big ask, is a massive, if you will, red flag. XD

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 minutes ago

          The problem arises when people distort quantity or quality of struggles in AES states that would logically exist in any Socialist state. Ie, all Socialist states will have prisons, and all Capitalist countries are going to do their best to portray them in as negative a light as possible, no matter what they look like in reality.

      • nico198X@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        30 minutes ago

        “Far from paradise” seems pretty generous for what i perceive as a dystopian nightmare state. they are cut off from outside information. there is retribution on families if ppl try to leave. also, you can’t leave. this is insanity. outside forces don’t make them behave that way.

        Xi: whether that popularity is real or not is a question, though, when he can push for the suppression of dissent or critique in the social sphere. one CAN’T challenge him. that doesn’t seem legitimately representative.

        i’m looking over your reading list. we can add that to the list. but there’s a reason i block hexbear and lemmygrad but not .ml. tankies fucking suck and i Socialism will never be taken seriously as long as it’s important to ppl to defend fucking Stalin.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 minutes ago

          See, the problem is that you’re generally wrong, factually, which is why you have such knee-jerk reactions to people saying that maybe AES states aren’t hellholes, actually. As an example, it’s mostly western sanctions that limit freedom of movement from DPRK residents, and the myths about collective family punishment are largely unsubstantiated. Repeating Red Scare myths uncritically is a huge problem.

          People can challenge Xi, what they cannot do is use large private media apparatus to push anti-government propaganda.

          Regarding your last point, you’re generally wrong. Socialism is increasing in popularity globally, including Marxism-Leninism. Funny enough, Nia Frome, the author of “Marketing Socialism,” has another quick article called “Tankies” that would be perfect for you to read, IMO.

  • aldfin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    53 minutes ago

    I don’t get why every Reddit alternative needs to be filled with these weird political ideas. Communism, Fascism and every other form of extremism only leads to misery.

    I’m sure capitalism is flawed, but you can make it work better. Any of the Nordic countries works as a great example. And no they aren’t perfect but nothing ever will be.

      • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Ussr was more a dictatorship. Dprk is more a shity monarchy. Cuba was closer, as long as you did not disagree with the Castro brothers. Not sure about Laos or Vietnam, so maybe?

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 hour ago

          The Soviet Union was not a dictatorship. They had a form of council-based democracy, read Soviet Democracy for more. It looked like this:

          The DPRK is not a monarchy, either. It isn’t even a one-party state, it has 3 that form a coalition government. It’s quite a comprehensive system, and works based on the concept of approval voting.

          Even while the Castros were presidents, they were overwhelmingly popular and supported by the people. Further, its democratic model has led to one of the most queer-friendly countries on the planet.

  • Letsdothisagain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    30 minutes ago

    Workers of the world unite!

    Edit: not that I’m into that sort of thing… I’ve taken history classes, I’ve read about, I’ve watched documentaries, I understand that communism is not to be desired or

      • Ibuthyr@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        Ever seen Communism working as intended? There’ll always be power hungry assholes ruining these things for everyone.

        Edit: oooooh, this is lemmy.ml. That explains a lot, lol.

        • Scott_of_the_Arctic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          28 minutes ago

          TBF Russia is a shit hole and has failed in every type of government they’ve ever had. Honestly it’s probably worse in Russia now than under communism. China was also doing no better before “communism”. Basically countries tend to make the jump when they have nothing left to lose.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          I’d say all AES states have broadly managed to achieve their goals. There have been troubles and struggles faced internally and externally, none have been dreamlike utopian wonderlands, but seemingly only non-Marxists are the ones that require that of Marxist movements.

          • Ibuthyr@lemmy.wtf
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            I had to google that first. Had no idea what the sahel states had to do with socialism or communism.

            Those AES states are mostly highly corrupt though. I wouldn’t refer to north Korea as a livable place, plus the leaders are bathing in money while the populace dies from hunger. In Vietnam, if you know someone in politics, you can get whatever you want. I know this (nearly) first-hand. Laos, lol. And why the hell is China on that list? They’re way too deep in the capitalist game to be on that list, no? People also don’t mean shit to the ones in charge. Their people are executed by the thousands every year and they like to keep minorities in concentration camps. I’m sorry, those states are failed states in my opinion.

            And as long as there is corruption, communism is not going to work. It’s a nice theory, but it just takes one black sheep to fuck it up for everyone. I wish it weren’t that way. It’d be nice to live in a world where people work for a purpose and everyone gets the same and no one has to suffer. Not going to happen.

            Capitalism is plain evil though, I’ll give you that.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 hour ago

              AES as in “Actually Existing Socialism.” The Sahel States are a quasi-Socialist national liberatory alliance. Burkina Faso was briefly Socialist under Sankara, but that time has passed.

              The struggles faced in the DPRK are more due to sanctions and embargo than anything else, kinda like Cuba. Unlike Cuba, the US slaughtered 20% of their population and destroyed 80% of their buildings, yet they were economically ahead of South Korea until the 80s. The leadership is not “bathing in money” either.

              Vietnam is rising rapidly. It isn’t a Utopia, but is dramatically improving. Same with Laos.

              The PRC is more classically Marxist than they were under the late Mao period and Gang of Four, I elaborated on that, here. Further, you’re repeating state department propaganda about them, very silly.

              Further, China is democratic. It doesn’t have a western liberal democracy, but it does have a comprehensive Socialist democracy. You can read this article talking about why the Chinese democratic model is in place and why the people support it, or this article on how the Chinese model of democracy works in contrast to western democracy, or this short video on how it works, or this video on how elections work, or this article on the makeup of the NPC.

              By what metrics is China not democratic? What mechanically would they have to change for you to accept the opinions of the Chinese citizenry on their own system? I recommend this introduction to SWCC, it goes in-detail about how elections and the democratic model work in China. what mechanically would China have to change in order for you to accept the system that the Chinese have implemented by and for themselves, and approve of at rates exceeding 90%?

              Please explain how “one black sheep” would ruin Socialism/Communism. Given that you clearly aren’t familiar with Marxist theory nor how AES states function, this is a telltale sign that your critiques are of strawmen.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          That’s not how AES states function, in any capacity. Further, people get paid in Socialist states, so I really don’t know what strawman you’re fighting here.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          The vast majority believe they are worse off now than under Socialism, which makes sense because the reintroduction of Capitalism resulted in skyrocketing rates of poverty, prostitution, drug abuse, homelessness, and an estimated 7 million excess deaths around the world.

          • lost_screwdriver@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            4 hours ago

            I guess you can say Ukraine is now worse off than in the USSR, Back then they weren’t at war. The current situation isn’t exactly the fault of capitalism (or Ukranie for that matter)

              • cotlovan@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Oh my fing god, I thought lemmy is only full of extreme liberals, but it’s also full of wannabe comunists. Dude, have you ever asked yourself why USSR fell if everything was better than in the west? Why people risked their lives jumping over the Berlin wall? Why there was a whole black market of importing goods from the west into ussr? Why people didn’t enjoy being sent to Siberia by the millions to die of hunger and of forced labor?

                Or was Cuba a success?

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  Lemmy is developed by Communists, the Communists were here first.

                  Secondly, the dissolution of the USSR was driven instead by numerous complex factors:

                  1. Liberal reforms that gave the Bourgeoisie power over key industries

                  2. A firm dedication to planning by hand even as the economy grew more complex and computers too slow to be adapted to the planning mechanisms

                  3. A huge portion of resources were spent on maintaining millitary parity with the US in order to dissuade US invasion

                  4. 80% of the combat done in World War II was on the Eastern Front, and 20 million Soviets lost their lives, with no real economic support from the West in rebuilding despite taking the largest cost of war

                  5. An enclosed, heavily sanctioned economy relied on internal resource gathering, closed off from the world market

                  Countries like the PRC have taken to heart what happened in the USSR. As an example, the PRC shifted to a more classically Marxist economy, focusing on public ownership of only the large firms and key industries, and relying on markets to develop out of private ownership. This keeps them in touch with the global economy without giving the bourgeoisie control of key industries, and thus the bourgeoisie has no power over the economy or the state.

                  People left the DDR after getting good educations for free, and higher wages in West Germany. They got the best of both worlds.

                  Millions were not sent to Siberia.

                  Cuba is a resilliant success story given its brutal embargo and sanctions, yes. It has astounding metrics in areas like life expectancy despite being intentionally impoverished by the US Empire.

              • SugaredScoundrel@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                6 hours ago

                Private interests do align, but rarely. Meaning you have more chance at opposing narratives forming. Public is monovoiced. Without an opposing voice its data becomes suspect.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  Private is controlled by large corporations, and often gets state funding. All press has bias. Really, you don’t have anything against the data other than you feel like it could be wrong.

  • oyzmo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Socialism allows for both public and private ownership, individual freedoms, and democratic decision-making, while still aiming for social equality. Communism, in contrast, tends to involve total state control and often limits personal freedoms.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Tell me you’ve never read anything about communism that wasn’t written by anti-communists without telling me you’ve never read anything about communism that wasn’t written by anti-communists.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Both Capitalism and Socialism have room for public and private ownership, the difference is which sector controls the state, large firms, and key industries. The Nordic Countries are dominated by Private Capital, ie it is Capitalist, while the PRC is dominated by Public Ownership, ie it is Socialist.

      Communism limits the personal freedoms of the bourgeoisie. All Communism is, is a more developed and global form of Socialism, where the small firms that once were private have all grown into the public sector or collapsed.

    • m532@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Limits personal freedoms only for the owning class. If you’re not a landlord or ceo you have nothing to fear.

      • Liberteez@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        Tell that to the masses Lenin, Stalin, and Mao killed

        I summary communes, and Anarcho communism sounds lovely. Once authority is involved, they tend to fail

        • m532@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Yeah I didn’t consider the nazis but they are just lackeys for the landlords and ceos so I mentally put them in there. Ofc nazis have to fear communism too.

        • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 hours ago

          How are you going to secure your commune from external enemies without invoking authority?

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 hours ago

          The Black Book of Communism was debunked long ago, from including Nazis killed during World War II as “victims of Communism” to literally making up numbers to get to 100 million dead to being outright disproven once the Soviet Archives were opened up.

          There were excess deaths, but Communist leaders weren’t mindless butchers, either. And with the introduction of Socialism came numerous benefits for the working class, like a doubling of life expectancy, tripling of literacy rates to 99.9%, free and high quality education, healthcare, and childcare, an expansion in women’s rights, a democratization of the economy, and much more.

          Anarchism is a beautiful idea, and I used to be one. However, I am more convinced of Marxism, namely because we have more data that shows the success of Marxism, and because hierarchy and centralization are requirements for expansive infrastructure projects like high speed rail and for complex production, such as for smartphones.

          I have an introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List you can check out, if you’d like to learn more.

    • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      You’re not going to overthrow fascism, white supremacy or capitalism with random acts of adventurism. If you’re not more organized than your enemy they will crush you.

  • eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Maaaaaaybe the USSR isn’t the best example of a better society we want to be building.

    I’m watching the whole ideological-purge thing happen in the US and it kinda sucks.

    • ptee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Both extremes on display those examples, seems like they both end up in the same place in the end. Maybe it would be reasonable to use any system that is a mix of things, instead of focusing on pure capitalism or communism.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 hours ago

        There’s really no such thing as a pure system, any mix is still going to have either the public sector as principle or private, ie which controls the state, large firms, and key industries. There’s no way to keep them “balanced,” one will have power over the other, and its best for it to be the public sector.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Either build something better or shutup, I say. Unless you’re a big fan of Tsarist Russia

      • rational_lib@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I’ve played civilization and I’m pretty sure there’s other forms of government besides Communism and Monarchy that have low corruption, albeit lacking the ability to force the citizens into war on the leader’s whim.

        • CalipherJones@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 minutes ago

          Corruption is a matter of individuals rather than the form of government. Any human system is bound to be corruptible since it involves humans.

          I think a strong anti corruption culture is the best defense against it.

        • m532@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Isnt civilization the game where “democracy” has 0 corruption? I think its kinda biased and not exactly based on reality

  • Grimel@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Ah yes, get rid of extremism with different extremism. I think we’ve been there already. Spoiler: Didnt work.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      First, a societal organization outside the Western norm has no bearing on if it will be successful or not. The “middle” has no superior intrinsic characteristics.

      Second, we know Socialism works, the PRC is now becoming the de facto world power as the US falls, all while providing dramatic improvements for its people and increasing levels of satisfaction.

      What, specifically, doesn’t work?

      • Grimel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Extremism is “the quality or state of being extreme” or “the advocacy of extreme measures or views”.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism

        Or as i know it with these regimes both left or right: those that oppose and do not belive in our thing must be gotten rid of. I would say that is the extreme here to me. Thats what both communists and nazis did in Europe, in my country, in my city. And i want none of it to come back. Iam honestly terrified where is this world headding again.

        But if you want to take a deeper look, this seems interesting if you have access:

        https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-83336-7_2

        https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-political-extremist-1857297

        • m532@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Ah so you’re an imperialist

          I myself consider imperialists to be extremists, their global oppression is certainly very extreme

          Communists just want to have the fruits of their labor not be stolen, very normal

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          7 hours ago

          The portrayal of the Communists and Nazis as “twin evils” exaggerates the sins of the Communists in quantity and quality, while minimizing the sins of the Nazis in quantity and quality, in order to show them as relatively equal problems. In other words, its Nazi apologia, and historical revisionism. Read Blackshirts and Reds.

          The Nazis executed the Communists, Socialists, gay people, trans people, disabled people, Jewish people, Slavic people, and many, many more. It wasn’t simple opposition, it was a racially supremacist ideology.

          The Communists executed Tsarists, fascists, and terrorists to the state. They did not create a systematic industrialized murder machine like the Nazis did in order to keep up with how many people they needed to kill.

          • Grimel@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            5 hours ago

            I can agree with you in some parts. They did not have any industrialized murder machine. But they mass murdered Polish by bullet, Ukrainians by starvation for example.

            Communists imprisoned and/or sent to forced labor people for being gay, religious (not only jews) and yes “terrorists to the state” which in most of the time meant someone just spoke against regime. And well being a prisoner in Communist countries meant you were treated almost like jew in a nazi camp just without killing part sometimes.

            All that said by my opinion communism wasnt racially supremacist ideology. It was just supremacist ideology. All they cared about was how great the state is and everything else is not.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              They did not mass murder the Polish, nor did they intentionally starve Ukrainians. Both of those claims are highly inaccurate, the Nazis exterminated the Polish and the 1930s famine was unintended and tragic.

              Further, your claims about the prison system are highly distorted in quantity and quality, they in no way compared to the industrial mass murder machines in Nazi Germany. Read Russian Justice.

              Communism is about uplifting the working class, not worship of the state.