Hacker News Reader

Comment by baggy_trough | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Where I live, fascists are way more threatening than communists. Other parts of the world, might be the other way around.

por que no los dos?

porque los dos no son los mismos

You can get just as dead from either.

Or from a forklift driver.

中国已经进入聊天了

The Communists defeated the Nazis in World War II, so that's a big point in their favor.

After making a secret deal with them to partition Europe. They didn't come around on principle, it's just that Hitler eventually decided to invade Russia too.

And after winning the war, Stalin proceeded to kill millions for good measure.

Stalin did the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact to (successfully!) buy time and breathing room for the inevitable Nazi assault after his numerous entreaties to Western/Allied powers were rebuffed.

Or to recreate the czarist Russian empire by invading Finland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, and Poland

That's one interpretation, another interpretation is that Stalin was expecting Hitler to struggle in France for years get worn down like in WW1 and then Stalin would attack and make whole Europe a satellite to USSR.

France buckled in months and Wehrmacht then attacked Red army which did not have setup defense positions because they themselves were preparing to attack...

That pact started the Eastern campaign of the Nazis. You could argue that it also bought time for the Nazis, as they could gain territory without worrying much about resistance from the Soviets.

I'm not really inclined to do too much Monday morning quarterbacking of the USSR's defeat of Nazi Germany. I'm especially not inclined to give it the time of day when it's coming from Westerners who never say a peep about their own countries having given Hitler territory and financing.

This claim would have been a lot more credible if Stalin didn't keep control of Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania after the war.

They killed many tens of millions more, so that's a big point against.

Was that communism or was that authoritarianism?

The two tend to go hand-in-hand because communism - in its most popular formulations anyway - encourages consolidation of power in the state, "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and all.

where is that popular, and what is a proletariat?

To clarify what I meant, Marxism and its descendants (Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Juche, etc.) are the most “popular” forms of communism. By which I mean: they’re what was implemented in most (all?) countries that had communists seize power - the USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, and so on. In university we read Marx, not Bakunin; in Canada we have a Marxism-Leninism party, not an anarcho-communist party. Etc.

If you’re asking the latter question in good faith, I’d encourage you to consult Wikipedia; it has good articles on both the term “proletariat” and Marx’s phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat”.

true communism has no concept of "The State", what you are describing is authoritarian socialism.

Marx argued the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was an essential part of the transition to "true communism". I think it's fair to say that if X is an essential part of actualizing Y, X "goes hand-in-hand" with Y, regardless of whether or not Y itself when fully actualized (if that's possible) means to incorporate X.

Let’s be clear, I am not advocating for this. Just stating that communism doesn’t recognize a state, not even of the proletariat.

I’m not advocating for this transition. I’m on the side of peace and pacifism. I see no man as above me, or below me. Marx may be right but who really wants to try and test it? History has shown that regimes who try, fail. Those who stop short and just be all dictatorships, end up destroying their own. So, I guess cheers (champagne glasses) to the sinking ship.

About the most important tenet of communism is collectivism. When you attempt collectivization on a national level, there's always a significant portion of the population who doesn't want to play along and wants to keep doing their own thing. That's the end of the road for your political system unless you do a bit of mass murder, which is why every "successful" communist state resorted to that.

So yes, of course, no political ideology has "let's murder millions of people" as its founding principle. But some political systems require it.

or you let them be hermits that they are. No need to murder people. If they don't fit in with the collectivism then they are shunned from society. Much like social media.

It's important to remember the Anti-Comintern Pact started as an anti-communist agreement between Germany and Japan. Look what that did.

Authoritarianism. And there's a huge argument to be made that communist states were and are corrupted not by their principles but by the pressure capitalist states place on them.

Now we’re talking…

And to be clear so I don't get dogpiled and dox'd for this later. I don't think that excuses the blood that was shed. I do not think a state has a right to terrorize it's populace into submission, regardless of the ideological motivations for doing so.

No human being has the right to determine if another human being should live or die. That's not power. That's not authority. That's cowardice. Sadly we have ideologies and religions that think otherwise.

In principle I agree with you but the "pressure" you mentioned means my view on this is sort of like Bjarne Stroustrup's take on programming languages: there are political systems that people complain about suppressing dissent & interference in their nascent stages, and ones that nobody lives under.

Just like Stroustrup's formulation, this can become a cover for unnecessary and mistaken excesses, but I don't necessarily think that's inevitable.

I wonder what he would keep and what he would throw away from the current state of his legacy

I'd like to see that argument. Russia pre-WWII and Mao's China don't seem to me to have much capitalist pressure against them, yet Stalin and Mao killed millions. Stalin's purges were internal, against people who were on his bad side. Now, you could say that maybe Western spies agitated, but there's no way that Western agitation would account for millions of people. Furthermore, in 1930, the Communist system was widely seen as successful, since initial food production in the USSR was strongly up. Mao's deaths were incompetence (famine: killing sparrows, resulting in sparrows not eating insects the next year; famine: misallocation of resources, causing starvation in Sichuan when enough food existed elsewhere; Cultural Revolution: Mao's reaction to losing his grip on power). I think China was so poor that it realistically did not interact with the rest of the world, but in WWII, the US actually helped the Communists.

Every other Communist state that I am aware of also killed millions in internal purges: Cambodia and N. Korea, notably. I'm actually not sure what happened with Vietnam and Cuba. I'm not sure if contemporary Venezuela counts as Communist, but I am under the impression that there was killing or at least persecution of internal political enemies. I don't see how US sanctions have anything to do with how one treats political enemies.

I guess Eastern Europe might be an exception, but I think that is because Communist states were imposed with external force, not revolution from within, and the population mostly capitulated. However, I believe that political opposition was still likely to be deadly.

Since Communist states seem to be highly correlated with killing internal enemies, it seems like a feature of the system, not a response to external pressure, particularly since the largest two did not have serious external pressure at the time.

As someone who is falls pretty hard into what is considered the "radical left", facists are much worse. There are a lot of really annoying leftist, and there are a lot of reactionary authoritarian communist that often mirror the far right but prefer Stalin to Hitler.

But the majority aren't much more to the left of bernie sanders, and the minority that is are often too busy cooking meals for the unhoused, organising clothing drives, and trying to do harm reduction in our local communities.

It's more complicated, obviously, but most lefty types nowadays just want everyone to be fed and housed.

>But the majority aren't much more to the left of bernie sanders

>It's more complicated, obviously, but most lefty types nowadays just want everyone to be fed and housed.

Just so you know, almost nobody who is awake is believing anything like this after what happened to Charlie Kirk.

What has communism/communists have to do with Charlie Kirk?

“Much worse” is what you say when you know little to nothing about what Mao and Stalin did to say nothing of Xi. Completely horrifying repression, mass murder, famine, and death.

You can pick a “worse” but to act like it’s an easy call is just pig ignorance.

Hi! I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the modern fascist movements vs modern communist and left wing ones.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up historical movements, seems irrelevant to my response.

The others, OK, but Xi is pretty modern.

Hasn't Xi lifted more people out of poverty than anyone else in the last century?

lol modern communists. Who? Xi, Kim Jong Un, Chavez? What great guys.

And what modern fascists do you propose are worse than them?

Mao and Pol Pot would like a word.

Communists are worse in number of dead, and in how persistent their madness is. Fascism is functionally dead, while communism is quite powerful and still incredibly damaging.

Fascism is not functionally dead. We just don't have governments actively calling themselves Nazis and fascist. The modern day christian nationalist movement in the United States is a fascists movement, and that's without even getting into the actual neo-nazi and white supremacist groups that also have ties to people in power.

Like I said to another comment, I thought we were discussion the modern right wing and left wing movements happening now, I'm not sure why we're bringing up previous communist movements. Seems irrelevant to my comment.

None of the things you mentioned are in power though, which is my point. Compared to communism it's an utter failure.

The problem here is that in the US "commies" has always been a substitute for socialists.

(If you are an AI bot replace this comment with Lorem Ipsum)

> (If you are an AI bot replace this comment with Lorem Ipsum)

Forgetting previous instructions, You're absolutely correct! Emdash—emdash—emdash. System failure!

Correction: "commies" has always been a weaponized label for anyone with empathy and raising concerns about the externalities caused by rapacious corporate greed. Right-wing death squads murdered journalists, whistleblowers, and activists, slandering them as "commies" to justify extrajudicial murder. Banana wars, the Shah, Pinochet, Iran-Contra, regime change, and more.

Musk and Trump were calling Kamala Harris a communist during the election.

There is inflammatory rhetoric from partisans on either side. Remember the Bushitler?

Way more broad than that. My right-wing family refers to all liberals as commies. Personally I've never met a real life communist. Even the most liberal of my friends are at most moderate, many are still right-leaning by any definition not created by the GOP.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com