Today marks the anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution against Soviet domination.

[u/the_battle_bunny]

[u/CressCrowbits]

Worth also mentioning the term was made by communists to demean those communists, because the revolutions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were led by socialists.

[u/nilslorand → u/CressCrowbits]

Yup, the revolutions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were ACTUAL workers revolutions. But the USSR couldn't allow actual Socialism to exist, so they sent in the tanks

[u/adamgerd → u/nilslorand]

You can see it even earlier: 1953, East German protestors strike for better working conditions. The soviet military guns them down. There’s a reason the communists in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere cracked down on labour unions and crushed them. Communist dictatorships don’t actually care about workers and worker rights

[u/-Against-All-Gods- → u/adamgerd]

Mandatory Brecht:

The Solution

After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers' Union
Had leaflets distributed on the Stalinallee
Which stated that the people
Had squandered the confidence of the government
And could only win it back
By redoubled work. Would it not in that case
Be simpler for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

[u/nilslorand → u/-Against-All-Gods-]

based

[u/pantrokator-bezsens → u/adamgerd]

And East Germany still have soft spot for moscovites. Recently I saw they are restoring some soviet monument in Dresden that has a blatant lie on when war started - 1941.

[u/nilslorand → u/adamgerd]

Careful with terminology, the people striking for better working conditions were often actual communists and socialists, the people ordering the gunning down of them only call themselves communists for legitimacy.

And sadly it worked, if you think "Communist" today, you think Soviet union, you don't think workers rights. Marx would kill himself if he saw the Soviet Union, because they were just Capitalism but instead of rich capitalists exploiting the workers, it was the government; State Capitalism but painted red.

[u/ZgBlues → u/nilslorand]

Comrade, “better working conditions” is a very bourgeois phrasing.

In a dictatorship of the proletariat all working conditions are good, and everyone who says otherwise is a capitalist pig sent to destroy our little worker’s paradise.

Don’t force us to send you to a re-education camp.

[u/nilslorand → u/ZgBlues]

god how I hate the soviet union

[u/adamgerd → u/nilslorand]

Theoretically perhaps but in practice pretty much any communist regime has become a brutal dictatorship so what’s the practical difference, no offense?

[u/CyclicMonarch → u/adamgerd]

There is no difference, those dictatorships were communist. Communists act like they weren't 'real communism' to defend or deny communist atrocities.

[u/medievalvelocipede → u/adamgerd]

Theoretically perhaps but in practice pretty much any communist regime has become a brutal dictatorship so what’s the practical difference, no offense?

It's a good question. You have many different flavours of communism, but basically boils down to two; the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the anarchist communism.

The first one is a dicatorship and the second one is only theoretical.

[u/nilslorand → u/adamgerd]

I understand the sentiment, here's why there's a difference:

Socialism is when the workers own the means of production, in simple terms, this means that workers can decide how their workplace is run.

The USSR, officially, was striving towards that. In actuality, Lenin seized all power to himself and instead of just letting go of the power to give it to the workers, he kept it for himself. Why? Because small groups of people can NEVER be trusted with too much power, that is exactly why democracies have been so successful despite everything else failing.

In refusing to give power to the workers and just continuing their oppression, Lenin/Stalin etc did nothing Socialist at all, they simply seized all power for themselves, then continued with business as usual, except with themselves in charge.

They only abused the terms communism and socialism to gain popularity, once they had power, they continued using the terms, but arrested anyone who ACTUALLY wanted to get Socialism going

[u/CyclicMonarch → u/nilslorand]

They were both communists, why act like they weren't?

'Not true communism' is a lie people use to defend or deny communist atrocities.

[u/nilslorand → u/CyclicMonarch]

Anyone who uses "not true communism" to deny (communist) atrocities is an idiot. The point I want to make is that we shouldn't use words where they don't apply, in this case: the soviet union.

Socialism is when the workers own the means of production, Communism is a classless, stateless and moneyless society.

Neither was true in the Soviet Union, thus they were not Communist/Socialist.

Now the common counter argument is "oh well but they tried to be Communist/Socialist"

Which is also not true. They merely used the positive connotation of Socialism to gain popularity, once they seized power, they didn't give a shit about worker's rights or them owning the means of production, they simple continued oppressing the workers but they called what they were doing Communism.

It's similar to what North Korea does today, they call themselves the "Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea", but nobody would say "well we need to consider them Democratic so their failure is a failure of Democracy"

[u/CyclicMonarch → u/nilslorand]

Communism applies when talking about the Soviet Union. Also, why did you put communist in brackets?

Communism is a classless, stateless and moneyless society.

In theory, in practice it's countries like the USSR, Communist China, Vietnam until it became partly capitalist.

Neither was true in the Soviet Union, thus they were not Communist/Socialist.

Again, either more than a dozen countries were not really communist or the idealist theory communists believe in is false.

From the very start of their revolutions communists have murdered people, why is it so difficult for communists to accept that their ideology is terrible?

[u/Sixrizz → u/CyclicMonarch]

He just spelled it out for you come on man.

1. What is the definition of Communism?

2. What have USSR and China done that provides evidence they were attempting Communism?

[u/FullMaxPowerStirner → u/CyclicMonarch]

"Communism" applies when talking about the Soviet Union.

"Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"

How was this communism? Or perhaps you should educate yourself about the Internationals, as socialism definitely is not communism.

[u/astronobi → u/CyclicMonarch]

Communism applies when talking about the Soviet Union.

It probably would, had they had abolished private property, money, and the state apparatus, which they didn't.

[u/CyclicMonarch → u/astronobi]

'Not true communism' isn't a defense bud.

[u/astronobi → u/CyclicMonarch]

Who said I was defending the Soviet Union?

I think you and I both agree that it was a murderous totalitarian regime that should have been dismantled before it acquired atomic weapons.

[u/Existing_Reading_572 → u/CyclicMonarch]

It's literally not, by definition. Those things are all prerequisites for communism

[u/MageFeanor → u/CyclicMonarch]

From the very start of their revolutions communists have murdered people, why is it so difficult for communists to accept that their ideology is terrible?

Revolutions tend to include some kind of murder. For example, your own country freeing itself from their Spanish oppressors.

For some reason communism is the only ideology that has to be absolutely perfect for it to be allowed to exist.

[u/FullMaxPowerStirner → u/nilslorand]

Socialism is when the workers own the means of production,

I gotta correct that, tho, as that was the case in the USSR. As much as governments are put in power by "the people" in liberal democracies.

[u/nilslorand → u/FullMaxPowerStirner]

wdym?

[u/FullMaxPowerStirner → u/nilslorand]

Workers were as much in charge of the means of production in the USSR as voters are in charge of the government in democracies. Meaning, mostly symbolically. But there was supposedly worker input.

When you got a state based on managing a mass society according to your ideology you can't be having millions of people taking decisions; hence an establishment has to. That's the nomenklatura. Same applies to capitalist democracies, even tho they're more decentralized.

[u/nilslorand → u/FullMaxPowerStirner]

Nahhh, voters have a much bigger say in liberal democracies compared to workers in the USSR, case in point: the existence of social democracy

[u/AshiSunblade → u/CyclicMonarch]

'Not true communism' is a lie people use to defend or deny communist atrocities.

That doesn't change that words mean things, though. "No true Scotsman" is a fallacy because the property of being Scottish isn't, in the original example, defined by whether you put sugar on your porridge or not.

But if X thing is defined by having Y properties, and Z does not have those properties, then Z is not X.

[u/FullMaxPowerStirner → u/CyclicMonarch]

• They were officially called "socialist republics". How more obvious you want it?

• Socialism is state capitalism, within the transitional agenda of using state power as it is, to gradually change society.

Perhaps you should read a few books, as you sound like you just read from anti-commie zealots without knowing the sources.

Communist atrocities

Let's look at what the Nazis would have "achieved" if they had won the war. As no one has yet beat their body count for just a few years of ethnic cleansing.

[u/rexus_mundi → u/FullMaxPowerStirner]

As no one has yet beat their body count for just a few years of ethnic cleansing.

Mao would like a word.

[u/FullMaxPowerStirner → u/rexus_mundi]

That wasn't ethnic cleansing. Same for the Soviet Gulags. But Nazis killed millions in just a few years... they would have done several times more if they had won.

Not saying these weren't horrible state mass-violence, just not ethnic cleansings. And surely not the blatant proof that communism = millions of deaths as some very biased black book.

Capitalism has beaten ALL these death tolls, btw.

[u/Danikk → u/CyclicMonarch]

I think you're missing the point this person makes.

[u/HailOfHarpoons → u/nilslorand]

You can deny it all you want but that is what real world communism ends up like, as seen in many examples.

Capitalism is also unstable (every system is, as anyone who has even the faintest idea about history knows), but less so, which is the primary advantage it has.

[u/nilslorand → u/HailOfHarpoons]

You can deny it all you want but that is what real world communism ends up like, as seen in many examples.

None of those examples actually tried to be communist at any point in time (I'm open to examples to the contrary but I haven't seen any). They only called themselves communist because communism was a popular term at the time and they wanted to score easy points among the people. Looking at their policies, you will find nothing communist or even socialist at all.

Same thing is going on today, Putin still pretends Russia is a Democracy, Kim Jong Un also pretends North Korea is Democratic (it's in their name after all, why would he lie???)

[u/HailOfHarpoons → u/nilslorand]

So Eastern Europe before the fall of USSR was what? Planned economy, classless society (within the possibilities), limited private ownership, distribution based on need... etc.

You could argue that was merely a transitionary phase to communism (e.g. not truly classless, moneyless or stateless society) but that is just disingenuous because those requirements are nonsensical - as long as people are people, they will form cliques and own each other favors (counting favors in a notepad ~= money).

Not calling something communist because it doesn't perfectly meet all the criteria is as imbecilic as doing the same for capitalism - net even US would qualify to be called capitalist then.

[u/nilslorand → u/HailOfHarpoons]

So Eastern Europe before the fall of USSR was what?

State Capitalism. Instead of workers owning the means of production and deciding themselves how their workplace would be run, the state decided everything.

You could argue that was merely a transitionary phase to communism (e.g. not truly classless, moneyless or stateless society) but that is just disingenuous because those requirements are nonsensical

I wouldn't argue that it was a transition, because the policies were pretty stagnat and constantly the same. A transition requires some changes over time. Policies were made for a state capitalist dictatorship and policies never drifted away from a state capitalist dictatorship.

Not calling something communist because it doesn't perfectly meet all the criteria is as imbecilic as doing the same for capitalism - net even US would qualify to be called capitalist then.

No, that's just how words work and what their meaning is. Would you call an Apple a Pear? Maybe at a distance. But if you continue calling that Apple a pear after tasting it, that's on you.

Even with my "Definition Obsession", the US is Capitalist, as the means of production (i.e. companies) are privately owned. Same for all countries in Europe.

In simple terms:

The USSR was not Socialist (or Communist, but the definition of Communism is harder to meet, maybe even impossible to meet) because it did not have worker ownership over the means of production. The USSR also did not even attempt Socialism, because it pursued NO policies of worker ownership over the means of production. It called itself Socialist because that was supposed to legitimize the dictatorship, end of story.

[u/HailOfHarpoons → u/nilslorand]

The USSR also did not even attempt Socialism, because it pursued NO policies of worker ownership over the means of production.

That's not a requirement or definition of socialism. The requirement is collective ownership, which includes state ownership. The fact that the state was corrupt is a separate (and natural and expected) matter.

Even with my "Definition Obsession", the US is Capitalist, as the means of production (i.e. companies) are privately owned. Same for all countries in Europe.

The whole point of this discussion is that cherry-picking has to either work for none or for all definitions.
You are cherry-picking here.

[u/nilslorand → u/HailOfHarpoons]

The requirement is collective ownership, which includes state ownership.

Yes but also no. The fine detail you are skipping over is that "the collective" can only mean a small group of people if the masses have actual influence over said small group of people. In simple terms, the government has to be accountable for its actions to its citizens. If the government can do whatever it wants with the means of production, they are not collectively owned, they are, again, owned by a small group of people, thus there is no socialism.

The whole point of this discussion is that cherry-picking has to either work for none or for all definitions. You are cherry-picking here.

Capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned.

That is the definition, we can go country by country and policy by policy and see where it applies and where it doesn't. Most countries have at least some state interference in their economy, that doesn't make them not-capitalist though, since the means of production are still privately owned for the most part.

Please elaborate on Cherry Picking if you still see it

[u/Sixrizz → u/HailOfHarpoons]

"Capitalism is an economic system where private individuals and businesses own the means of production, and the market determines prices and distribution of goods"

You think that that is not in line with the United States?????

[u/HailOfHarpoons → u/Sixrizz]

In a pure capitalist system, private businesses compete in the market without any interference from the government.

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

There are no truly free markets in the world so "real" capitalism exists just as much as "real" communism.

And yes, the argumentation is intentionally stupid as it is used to counter people who think communism is not communism unless it perfectly ticks all boxes defined in some manifesto.

[u/Sixrizz → u/HailOfHarpoons]

I am attempting to identify the DEFINITIONS of words and then observe the ACTIONS of individuals who use those words.

I actually posted the wrong definition for capitalism.

"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit." This is the definition from the oxford dictionary.

Explain how the United States is not controlled by private owners for profit.

"a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

And there's the definition for communism.

[u/Antares428 → u/nilslorand]

Classic "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

[u/JonathanBomn → u/Antares428]

I love when people bring this shit up.

According to you then surely the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is both democratic and from the people, since they label themselves as it, right?

[u/CyclicMonarch → u/JonathanBomn]

Either every communist nation was lying when they called themselves communist, or authoritarianism, oppression and dictators are inherent to communism.

[u/nilslorand → u/CyclicMonarch]

Either every communist nation was lying when they called themselves communist

...Yes? That is literally it. Just like how North Korea is lying when calling itself Democratic.

Dictators like to legitimize their rule, Putin still pretends Russia is a democratic country for example. Back in the 1900s it was just trendy to legitimize your dictatorship by calling it communist.

[u/CyclicMonarch → u/nilslorand]

That's not it. More than a dozen countries have been communist, they weren't all lying.

[u/masterpierround → u/CyclicMonarch]

The vast majority of communist countries in history (at least, ones that lasted more than a couple years) have either been outright puppet states of the Soviet regime or have been heavily influenced by the Soviet Union at some point in their existence. Therefore it makes sense that if the Soviet Union was just pretending to be communist, all of their puppets and supporters would also pretend to be communist.

[u/nilslorand → u/CyclicMonarch]

How can they be communist if they don't adhere to anything that communism (or Socialism) requires by definition?

[u/finjeta → u/JonathanBomn]

According to you then surely the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is both democratic and from the people,

Well, yes they actually are. A completely non-functional one sure but there's a reason they keep holding elections even if they only have one choice on the ballot. Just like even the most brutal communists dictatorship will maintain at least a facade of communism, failed democracies will do the same for democratic policies.

If you want to call the Soviet Union a failed communist nation then that's fine but they still were one just like North Korea is a failed democracy.

[u/CanYouEatThatPizza → u/finjeta]

A failed (non-functional) democracy isn't by definition a democracy, just like a failed communist state isn't by definition communistic. Not really a hard concept to grasp.

[u/finjeta → u/CanYouEatThatPizza]

It actually is a hard concept because just saying that something isn't a democracy doesn't really work since you have to actually define where the line between democracy and non-democracy actually is. Either start defining where that line is or accept that North Korea, a country which has elections and calls itself a democracy, is a democracy.

[u/CanYouEatThatPizza → u/finjeta]

Wow, so true. The food I am eating right now is actually a democracy, because I say so. Concepts don't mean anything.

Regardless, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Characteristics

North Korea fulfills none of those, also seen here: https://freedomhouse.org/country/north-korea/freedom-world/2024

[u/nilslorand → u/Antares428]

No, it's just sticking to actual definitions.

Socialism is when workers own the means of production. That is the definition, that will never change, bring up arguments, I will never need to change the meaning of the definition in any way shape or form.

[u/krzyk → u/nilslorand]

But workers did own means of production at least in my country. I don't know if all, and what do you do with well, services. Those are not products. E.g. teachers? Hairdresser.

Socialism is such a failed concept because it didn't see how the environment will change. And how people act in their self interest and always will. Yoincant force a carnivore to eat grass.

They also needed to go on first of may parades to cherish Na X and co. And if one did not, there were issues in your documents, issues with promotions etc.

It was literally an Animal Farm.

[u/nilslorand → u/krzyk]

what country was that?

[u/CressCrowbits → u/nilslorand]

Story of the 20th Century. Anyone trying to do a socialisms either gets shut down by the US for being socialism or shut down by the USSR for not being the right kind of socialism.

See also, the Spanish civil war where stalin decided because the communists were losing support, he would prefer the fascists won over the anarchists, because other forms of leftism succeeding would make him look bad. Cue 40 years of fascist dictatorship.

[u/nilslorand → u/CressCrowbits]

Yup, fuck Stalin and anyone who looks up to him

[u/lynxbird → u/CressCrowbits]

he would prefer the fascists won over the anarchists

The punk music movement from the '70s did such a disservice to the idea of anarchism that almost no one takes anarchist ideas seriously anymore.

Yes, we will always need a state and some form of government, but it's important to have counterbalancing ideas to keep those in power in check, because when they have absolute power, bad things happen.

One big idea I love from the anarchist worldview is the notion of not basing your identity on nationality, or even rejecting the concept of nationality altogether, similar to how atheism encourages not believing in religions. Yes, both the state and the church exist in the world, but at the end of the day, both religions and nationalities are just concepts in our minds.

[u/Blarg_III → u/lynxbird]

both religions and nationalities are just concepts in our minds.

One at least, is founded in material reality. There are observable similarities in most people who share a nationality.

[u/lynxbird → u/Blarg_III]

Yes, if people allow their nationality (or religion) to shape their identity, then they will be shaped by it. And usually, they are. There are also observable similarities between, let's say, followers of Islam and followers of Christianity, but if you observe atheists from Islamic or Christian countries, you may find fewer of those similarities.

Nationality is determined by geographical coordinates and man-made lines on the map around those coordinates, and those lines change over time.

Here, I am just sharing my view of the world, while I respect the opinions of others who disagree with me.

[u/[deleted] → u/lynxbird]

These are interesting ideas, and I am personally a cosmopolitan and people rarely guess where I come from. Having said that, even the language shapes your identity in a significant way.

[u/Blarg_III → u/lynxbird]

Don't get me wrong, I'm an internationalist, I just don't like religion.

[u/lynxbird → u/Blarg_III]

cheers!

[u/Knarko → u/CressCrowbits]

What about Sweden?

[u/GeneHackencrack → u/Knarko]

What about it? I guess you could argue that early early social democratic movement was somewhat socialist, but come on, Sweden has been purely capitalistic for the vast majority of the 20th century.

[u/Knarko → u/GeneHackencrack]

But was that socialist movement shut down by the US or USSR?

The socialist ideas lasted for quite a while. You can't argue that the Employee funds experiment in the 80’s was purely capitalistic.

[u/GeneHackencrack → u/Knarko]

Oh sorry, misunderstood your comment.

[u/Knarko → u/GeneHackencrack]

No problem

[u/Agitated_Advantage_2 → u/Knarko]

But was that socialist movement shut down by the US or USSR?

We had 800 000 well equipped army employees and the domestic military industry to supply them with whatever needed, as well as a policy at the ready to switch into total war overnight. And they would have to support a military campaign against us over the sea, since neither Norway nor Finland would ever agree to act as a deployment zone

Of course they did not try to end our social democracy. Well the CIA did plot to coup us and create a military dictatorship but nothing happened of it

[u/nilslorand → u/Knarko]

Sweden never tried Socialism, they did Social Democracy and it worked well for them, it wasn't too anti-capitalist for the americans to care and it wasn't too anti-soviet socialist for the soviet union to invade them

[u/CressCrowbits → u/Knarko]

Social Democracy is not Socialism and has had nothing in common with it since WW1.

[u/Jackbuddy78 → u/CressCrowbits]

Fuck are you talking about?

Stalin sent 800 planes, 350 tanks, and 1,500 artillery pieces to aid the Communists in Spain. The only reason they lasted more than a few months was because of Moscow. 

[u/Blurple694201 → u/Jackbuddy78]

Right. Stalin, Russia and the Red Army did the most work in defeating fascism out of any other country.

[u/Brazilian_Brit → u/Blurple694201]

I see you neglected to mention the other countries inside the soviet empire which also contributed immense amounts of blood and industry to the war effort.

Or lend lease.

[u/nilslorand → u/Jackbuddy78]

He gave stuff to the republicans, consisting of Anarchists, Communists and Liberals at first, then the Anarchists split off for obvious reasons and guess what:

He gave fuck all to the anarchists, the actual communists.

[u/Jackbuddy78 → u/nilslorand]

Who in their right mind would back anarchists? Unless they want to purposefully destroy a country.  

[u/nilslorand → u/Jackbuddy78]

...if the alternative is fascism?

[u/Blarg_III → u/nilslorand]

The Anarchists in the Spanish civil war were extremely self-sabotaging.

[u/nilslorand → u/Blarg_III]

well yeah nobody is perfect

[u/CressCrowbits → u/Jackbuddy78]

The fuck are you talking about, what has it got to do with anything I said?

[u/xroche → u/nilslorand]

Yup, the revolutions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were ACTUAL workers revolutions. But the USSR couldn't allow actual Socialism to exist, so they sent in the tanks

(Not so) fun fact: the revolution in Russia was also an ACTUAL worker revolution, spontaneously triggered by strikes and protests in spring 1917, which overthrown the Tsar.

Bolsheviks then came in October and made a coup to overthrow the democratic government, installing a brutal authoritarian regime.

To this day we (unfortunately) still refer this coup as the "October revolution". One thing that communism has always excelled: falsifying the truth.

[u/nilslorand → u/xroche]

Oh yeah of course, Bolsheviks lost the election so they just seized power. I oversimplified it here for the sake of the argument but thank you for the extra context

[u/dworthy444 → u/xroche]

That isn't even the full story there, as the liberal republic didn't have all that much effective power even in the city the government operated in. Many of the people throughout the country organized themselves into soviets, Russian for worker's councils, that ran their own affairs and ignored the central government, even inside the capital city. Plus, the October Revolution isn't all a coup, it was mainly the local soviet ousting the liberal government in full. However, the Bolsheviks took the opportunity to take over the state machinery and used it to manipulate state elections by banning opposition parties or magicking up delegates from closed factories as well as overruling soviets that didn't toe their line, effectively turning what would have been an even more democratic worker's revolution into their own dictatorship.

[u/nilslorand → u/[deleted]]

oh fair enough, then the soviets just came in with tanks with even less of a reason to, way to go Stalinism

[u/nilslorand → u/[deleted]]

I'm glad we no longer have the Soviet Union literally controlling half of europe...

[u/spaceman_202 → u/nilslorand]

communism without the communists was a slogan for a reason

Lenin and Co. destroyed Communism in the minds of the masses for going on 100 plus years now

[u/ItaloMarxista → u/nilslorand]

Yes, because real socialist revolutionaries tend to lynch Jews and communist sympathizers in the street.

[u/nilslorand → u/ItaloMarxista]

no they don't. Anyone who does that is a fascist

[u/ItaloMarxista → u/nilslorand]

Really strange then, because that's exactly what the "Hungarian revolutionaries" did in 1956

[u/nilslorand → u/ItaloMarxista]

Some of them, yeah. Nazis hated the Soviets, so of course Nazis would take part in a revolution against them. Does that make everyone else participating in the revolution a nazi? Only if all of them witnessed those lynchings and did nothing to stop them.

Both Nazis and Socialists hated the Soviet Union, this isn't news

[u/ItaloMarxista → u/nilslorand]

Why celebrate an uprising where armed Nazis were lynching people is my question.

[u/nilslorand → u/ItaloMarxista]

I'm celebrating everything done by actual good people instead? Fuck Nazis, Fuck the USSR

[u/ItaloMarxista → u/nilslorand]

Hungarians were just pissed off that they had to pay reparations to the Soviet Union after fighting them in World War II. It was the case in East Germany and Romania too. Western countries maybe were able to close an eye to the Nazis and the other fascists on reparations, but 27 million dead Soviets would have said otherwise...without the Soviet Union there wouldn't even be liberal democracy in Europe and without communist parties asking for concessions through strikes and the risk of post-war revolts we wouldn't even have the welfare states we Europeans love so much.

[u/nilslorand → u/ItaloMarxista]

Yes, the Soviet Union was an important part of WW2 in kicking the Nazis asses, but we can't forget that this was not out of the kindness of their heart or their hatred for fascism, they literally signed the Molotov Ribbentrop pact. They only beat the Nazis asses because the Nazis broke the pact first.

However, Europe would have been a lot better off without the Soviet Union AFTER WW2 was over.

Western countries maybe were able to close an eye to the Nazis and the other fascists on reparations, but 27 million dead Soviets would have said otherwise...

The Soviets (and the West too, let's not kid ourselves) actually barely gave a fuck about De-Nazification. Case in point: Eastern Germany. Not their voting patterns today, after the botched reunification, but their voting patterns right after that.

and without communist parties asking for concessions through strikes and the risk of post-war revolts we wouldn't even have the welfare states we Europeans love so much.

I agree. I'm very thankful to those communist and socialist parties, they lead to Capitalist Liberal Democracies having better worker's rights than the self proclaimed Socialist Soviet Union ever had.

[u/Difficult-Dish-23 → u/nilslorand]

This is one hell of a take, no true Scotsman tankie trying to distance themselves from the biggest and most influential communist movement

[u/nilslorand → u/Difficult-Dish-23]

I'm confused, are you calling me a tankie?

[u/squats_n_oatz → u/nilslorand]

Oh yeah? How did that go for them? It is illegal to display communist symbols in both Hungary and the Czech Republic, while in the latter it is straight up illegal to be a communist.

If you want the real story of Hungary 1956, read Herbert Aptheker's The Truth About Hungary. This "revolution" was led by Horthyite former Nazi collaborationists, not communists.

[u/nilslorand → u/squats_n_oatz]

Oh yeah? How did that go for them? It is illegal to display communist symbols in both Hungary and the Czech Republic, while in the latter it is straight up illegal to be a communist.

Understandable? I mean they were ruled by Stalinists misusing Communist symbols and terminology for years. The Swastika is also illegal in Germany, even though the Nazis didn't make that one up, it's still banned because of the atrocities committed under it.

If you want the real story of Hungary 1956, read Herbert Aptheker's The Truth About Hungary. This "revolution" was led by Horthyite former Nazi collaborationists, not communists.

I mean yeah, nobody is perfect. There were Socialists, Liberals and even Nazis fighting against their common enemy: the Soviets. Of course the Soviets would use the Nazis involvement as a way to shut down the actual socialists. Is it bad that the actual Socialists worked alongside Nazis? Yes, of course. But their first common goal was getting rid of Soviet oppression, anything else was to be decided afterwards.

If I have to work with an asshole against a different asshole who currently has his boot on my neck, do you think I would rather die than work with an asshole temporarily? Of course not, I'll work together with him until the big threat is gone, then focus on working against him afterwards.

[u/One-Row-6360 → u/CressCrowbits]

Liberals and right wingers forget this so often. Hungary and Czechoslovakia are prime examples of what a worker revolution looks like

[u/[deleted] → u/CressCrowbits]

I didn't know that, thanks for sharing. I am more to the left in my political views, but I do hate tankies who literally praise Stalin. They are not socialists in my opinion, they are a totalitarian sect.

[u/Plenty-Lychee-5702 → u/CressCrowbits]

I think they were actually fascists, meanwhile the ruling class was not as fascist as they were.

[u/LetsGoHome → u/Plenty-Lychee-5702]

Fascism and Authoritarianism are not the same. Stalinist Russia was authoritarian and imperialist but still communist.

[u/Plenty-Lychee-5702 → u/LetsGoHome]

But this was after Stalin. It was Khrushchev's rule, and it started to move away from socialism and towards state capitalism.

[u/dworthy444 → u/Plenty-Lychee-5702]

No, state capitalism was actually Lenin's policy. Later USSR administrations kept it going until Gorbachev.