• JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron? 😂 like the whole point of communism is that there isn’t a ruling class. I guess Russia and China were never really communist, just statist authoritarian right? I mean, the Nazis called themselves Socialist. They were nowhere near that

      • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron?

        Most real life implementations of communism used an authoritarian one party system. You can say these aren’t true examples of communism, but that just ends up sounding like cope unfortunately.

        • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair point. Though so far, there hasn’t really been any system at all that didn’t lead to genocide and/or class based opression. From monarchs to feudal Lords to capitalist oligarchies and communist dictators, terrible people always rise to the top.

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Isn’t “authoritarian communist” kind of an oxymoron?

        Yes. Yes, it is. I sometimes call them “pseudocommunists” for this reason.

      • Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        well socialism has the proletariat as the ruling class, this is true in Marxism & anarchism even if anarchists word it differently

        • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The proletariat are by definition the majority. The Soviet Union was by no means ruled by the majority. Stalin murdered millions to enforce his autocracy—the exact opposite of majority rule.

          • WabiSabiPapi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            just to chime in with an anarchist perspective-- majority rule, as lionized by proponents of liberal democracies, is itself a form of heirarchy in which the will of an ostensible ‘majority’ (though usually that of the capital- owning class actually) is inflicted upon society as a whole, alienating the minority position, enforced by the state apparatus’ monopoly of violence.

            if one values bodily autonomy, reconciled with the needs of the collective, a system of governance like mutual collective determination must be established which guarantees that all voices are heard and acknowledged.

        • ATGM 🚀@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The party leaders are not proletarian, but rather become part of a class of privileged bureaucrats.

          • Coryneform@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            there’s a trend towards that, which can be combatted & has been by communist parties. Stalin had a pretty incoherent plan to combat rightist tendencies within the communist party, assuming the problem stemmed from external meddling. Mao actually shared your view in that bureaucracy rots socialism, and that it needs to be decreased as the people are helped towards being self reliant, ready to self manage the economy & have suitable industry to run the country with. that’s why the cultural revolution happened, to fight bureaucracy

        • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The same can be said for capitalism though.

          Capitalism must be enforced somehow, it ends up being an oligarchy or authoritarian because of that.

      • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Both. Fascist apologist like to cherry pick palatable characteristics of figures like Stalin, or Hitler, or Andrew Jackson in order to destigmatize thier idolatry of these figures. These “certain aspects” are the tip of the wedge they use to destroy rationality and peace.

        A reasonable person who would like to discuss the benefits of communism would point to the value of labor, advantages of unions, and the dignity of the worker, not the evil, paranoid, and violent person of Stalin.

        Always, the stink of fascism follows the idolization of so called “great men.” Excuses after excuses.

          • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The Holocaust most definitely happened and was perpetuated by the Nazis. Please don’t accuse me of denial.

            Communism, or to be most specific, Marxism, was most definitely aligned against Hitler.

            Stalin, was not. He would have watched Hitler kill all of Europe had the Nazis not attacked Russia. Same as the united states if Japan had not attacked them.

              • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not obsessed with Stalin. I’m also not a Holocaust denier. You really seem keen on saying inflammatory things about me without any preceding context.

                I will observe that I think Stalin was an awful person who tarnished the reputation of socialism for a century. I don’t have anything against socialist, being one myself.

                I have a beef with apologist for failed communist states like the soviet onion. I feel they deeply misrepresent socialism.

                  • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    It’s a semantic argument, then. To me a fascist is a Donald Trump. To me, Facisim is a broad set of characteristics which can be attributed to people outside of the context of Nazi Germany. For example, I might call an ancient emperor a fascist.

                    Facisim to you is a political movement linked only to the Nazis and thier allies.

                    That’s not unfair. It’s a different definition of the word.

              • SuddenDownpour@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Your historical notes are technically correct, and Stalin did even attempt to reach a pact with France to limit the potential expansion of Nazi Germany. However, once those initiatives failed, Stalin had no issue about pacting with Hitler instead to invade third countries together, which highlights how Stalin’s first priority was improving his geopolitical position, rather than an ideological opposition to nazism.

              • Quereller@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Do you deny the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact and the illegal attack on Poland by the Soviet union under its leader Josef Stalin?

          • peanuts4life@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I am of the strong opinion that fascism doesn’t care if you call yourself a communist, a capitalist, or a Democrat. If someone promotes a state which strips the power of local and individual labor for it’s own use; cultivates violence as a means of domestic control; supports expansionism; and finally the consolidation of power under a personality; I oppose it, and call it what it is.

          • Fizz@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because they were attacked. Otherwise they would have happily sat out of ww2.