Why isn't Socialism/Communism as frowned upon as Fascism?

[Ceannairceach]

Marxist-Leninism and its bizarre "socialism in one country" theory is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself, and I'd argue that it doesn't quite fit the bill of nationalism.

meh, agree to disagree.

Fair enough, but I'd add to my point that theirs was a circumstance born from perpetual siege by capitalist, and later fascist, powers. It makes a certain twisted sense to invoke national pride as a response to that, particularly when the intention is to build an authoritarian, totalitarian superpower. But I still don't necessarily agree that they were nationalist per se, especially seeing as the USSR was a union of nations rather than a nation itself.

[Ceannairceach]

And once you incorporate nationalism, it ceases to be socialism. Socialism is an inherently internationalist ideology and economic theory.

I disagree.

Socialist politics has been both centralist and decentralised; internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organised through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions and at other times independent of—and critical of—unions; and present in both industrialised and developing countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Then like many people have in history, I will say that I disagree with WIkipedia's summary.

[Genivaria]

I take it you don't see eye to eye with Uncle Joe's socialism in one country shtick.

Why can't socialism be nationalistic as well as internationalist?

Because the two are contradictory. You are focus on the development of the nation, or focus on the development of the international movement. The two are not able to be reconciled.

You are presenting a false dichotomy by inherently equating socialism with 'international movement'.
You're basically assuming your conclusion.
"Socialism is inherently international because it is inherently international."

[Ceannairceach]

Because the two are contradictory. You are focus on the development of the nation, or focus on the development of the international movement. The two are not able to be reconciled.

You are presenting a false dichotomy by inherently equating socialism with 'international movement'.
You're basically assuming your conclusion.

I disagree entirely. It isn't a false dichotomy so much as arguing from the orthodox position: since its foundation, or at least since Marx published his works on socialism, socialism has always been interpreted as internationalist. Nationalistic elements within the socialist movement have always been a small minority, and, I'd argue, heretical to the socialist norm.

"Socialism is inherently international because it is inherently international."

No, socialism is inherently international because it is and has always been theorized to require a united, worldwide proletariat to function. That is simple fact, and I challenge you to find a socialist theorist who isn't himself a nationalist contrarian who disagrees.

[Kash Island]

meh, agree to disagree.

Fair enough, but I'd add to my point that theirs was a circumstance born from perpetual siege by capitalist, and later fascist, powers. It makes a certain twisted sense to invoke national pride as a response to that, particularly when the intention is to build an authoritarian, totalitarian superpower. But I still don't necessarily agree that they were nationalist per se, especially seeing as the USSR was a union of nations rather than a nation itself.

it was an Empire and it's "republics" were merely territories it used to gain manpower and resources, utlimatley Russia was the sovereign that dictated to the "republics"

It was the Russian Empire dressed in red with "feel good" messages.

honestly, it was pretty Fascist in some ways, but it lied to itself.

[Ceannairceach]

Fair enough, but I'd add to my point that theirs was a circumstance born from perpetual siege by capitalist, and later fascist, powers. It makes a certain twisted sense to invoke national pride as a response to that, particularly when the intention is to build an authoritarian, totalitarian superpower. But I still don't necessarily agree that they were nationalist per se, especially seeing as the USSR was a union of nations rather than a nation itself.

it was an Empire and it's "republics" were merely territories it used to gain manpower and resources, utlimatley Russia was the sovereign that dictated to the "republics"

It was the Russian Empire dressed in red with "feel good" messages.

honestly, it was pretty Fascist in some ways, but it lied to itself.

Implying the Republics had no power at all and were completely subservient to Russian interests exposes a dreadful lack of understanding of Soviet politics, especially pre- and post-Stalin.

[Genivaria]

You are presenting a false dichotomy by inherently equating socialism with 'international movement'.
You're basically assuming your conclusion.

I disagree entirely. It isn't a false dichotomy so much as arguing from the orthodox position: since its foundation, or at least since Marx published his works on socialism, socialism has always been interpreted as internationalist. Nationalistic elements within the socialist movement have always been a small minority, and, I'd argue, heretical to the socialist norm.

I do not believe that calling a political ideology that you disagree with 'heresy' is either honest or helpful.
Was socialism as proposed by Marx internationalist? Yes.
Was socialism always interpreted as internationalist? This is historically false.
Saying that the times it did made it simply not socialist is an obvious No True Scotsmen.

[Kash Island]

it was an Empire and it's "republics" were merely territories it used to gain manpower and resources, utlimatley Russia was the sovereign that dictated to the "republics"

It was the Russian Empire dressed in red with "feel good" messages.

honestly, it was pretty Fascist in some ways, but it lied to itself.

Implying the Republics had no power at all and were completely subservient to Russian interests exposes a dreadful lack of understanding of Soviet politics, especially post-Stalin.

The had SOME power, but ultimately they were simple pawns of Moscow at the end of the day. The balance of power was not remotely even.

[Ceannairceach]

I do not believe that calling a political ideology that you disagree with 'heresy' is either honest or helpful.

Well, it's a fact nonetheless. It's not a matter of if I disagree or not.

Was socialism as proposed by Marx internationalist? Yes.
Was socialism always interpreted as internationalist? This is historically false.

It was only ever intepreted as non-internationalist by select nationalists within the movement, with no broader support within the movement itself. Why should individual theorists with no backing be able to define an ideology?

Saying that the times it did made it simply not socialist is an obvious No True Scotsmen.

Except they literally aren't Scotsmen in this case, they're Welsh.

[Dejanic]

I disagree entirely. It isn't a false dichotomy so much as arguing from the orthodox position: since its foundation, or at least since Marx published his works on socialism, socialism has always been interpreted as internationalist. Nationalistic elements within the socialist movement have always been a small minority, and, I'd argue, heretical to the socialist norm.

I do not believe that calling a political ideology that you disagree with 'heresy' is either honest or helpful.
Was socialism as proposed by Marx internationalist? Yes.
Was socialism always interpreted as internationalist? This is historically false.
Saying that the times it did made it simply not socialist is an obvious No True Scotsmen.

Socialism has always been internationalist since its conception, always; and we don't need a Liberal to tell us otherwise. Even Stalin's SIOC policy was essentially a fall back because of the failure of international revolution, and was never intended to be nationalist in the traditional sense as Stalinists ultimate goal is a worldwide Socialist/Communist federation, certainly not nationalistic. Nationalism under Socialism refers to proletariat nationalism and national liberation and is internationalist in its goals. Read some basic Socialist literature and come back before you spread lies.

[Kash Island]

what if It told you ideologies come in all shapes and forms and that saying that one "isn't right" is simply impossible because of the millions of interpretations...

for example: If someone had followed Hitlers ideals but without the anti-semitism/racism would it no longer be national socialism? or would it be considered a seperate branch?

Is Maoism/Trotskyism/Stalinism not communism because they branch off?

[Ceannairceach]

Implying the Republics had no power at all and were completely subservient to Russian interests exposes a dreadful lack of understanding of Soviet politics, especially post-Stalin.

The had SOME power, but ultimately they were simple pawns of Moscow at the end of the day. The balance of power was not remotely even.

Pawns of Moscow, sure. Pawns of Russia? No. The balance of power was such that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union held sway over the national parties, in a system that is called "democratic centrism," if I'm not misremembering. Unity in decision-making regardless of opinion differences. That doesn't mean Russia was in command of everything else.

[Kash Island]

The had SOME power, but ultimately they were simple pawns of Moscow at the end of the day. The balance of power was not remotely even.

Pawns of Moscow, sure. Pawns of Russia? No. The balance of power was such that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union held sway over the national parties, in a system that is called "democratic centrism," if I'm not misremembering. Unity in decision-making regardless of opinion differences. That doesn't mean Russia was in command of everything else.

sure seemed like they were in command when they starved the Ukrainians wholesale...wonder how many Ukrainians had a say in that.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I take it you don't see eye to eye with Uncle Joe's socialism in one country shtick.

Why can't socialism be nationalistic as well as internationalist?

Because the two are contradictory. You are focus on the development of the nation, or focus on the development of the international movement. The two are not able to be reconciled.

Why can't you do both at different stages? After all, this hypothetical revolution has to start somewhere, i.e. in one country. Socialism has to begin in that one country and needs to spread. How do you spread enthusiasm for an idea? Nationalism, or very good propaganda, or both.

Besides- and this goes out in general to the revolutionaries and fiery-eyed Marxists I see on this thread and in the forums- the world can't all decide at once to become socialistic. Believe it or not, people may not want that, and that is fine to not want that in some cases. You cannot force them to adopt a political and economic system overnight because it is for some greater good, or because it may/may not alleviate the suffering of an underclass. I want social inequality to end or at least be significantly be reduced, but to force others to follow suit (only to, let's be honest, murder them because they are middle class or have wealth) is against the very fundamentals of choice and democracy. It was tried before, and you can argue all about "true" communism all you want, but in almost all attempts it has failed miserably, because it forced people to give stuff up that they didn't want to.

And you know what? No matter the cause, you cannot just force a group of people to hand over their property because Father Marxmas decided it was a naughty thing to do. He may have been right to an extent about capitalism then and now, but ultimately his idea was flawed. It was abused, yes, but let's be honest: like Nietzsche's philosophy (and I say this as an avid reader of the German dude's philosophy), it was pretty easy to abuse. For Friedrich, the Ubermensch was easily misunderstood as a literal strong man, the image of perfection, the Aryan. Using the banner of equality and the end to class conflict was attractive to those suffering from centuries of animosity and instability, and so your Lenins and your Maos and your Stalins did this to their advantage.

No true scotsman aside, communism can never happen. To be honest with you, I am glad it never will.

[Genivaria]

I do not believe that calling a political ideology that you disagree with 'heresy' is either honest or helpful.
Was socialism as proposed by Marx internationalist? Yes.
Was socialism always interpreted as internationalist? This is historically false.
Saying that the times it did made it simply not socialist is an obvious No True Scotsmen.

Socialism has always been internationalist since its conception, always; and we don't need a Liberal to tell us otherwise. Even Stalin's SIOC policy was essentially a fall back because of the failure of international revolution, and was never intended to be nationalist in the traditional sense as Stalinists ultimate goal is a worldwide Socialist/Communist federation, certainly not nationalistic. Nationalism under Socialism refers to proletariat nationalism and national liberation and is internationalist in its goals. Read some basic Socialist literature and come back before you spread lies.

and we don't need a Liberal to tell us otherwise

So anyone who disagree with you is somehow a 'liberal' which you use as a slur?

Nationalism under Socialism refers to proletariat nationalism and national liberation and is internationalist in its goals

So basically the same thing that Revolutionary France did?

Read some basic Socialist literature

I've read the Communist Manifesto actually.

and come back before you spread lies.

Fucking calm down.

[Ceannairceach]

Why can't you do both at different stages? After all, this hypothetical revolution has to start somewhere, i.e. in one country. Socialism has to begin in that one country and needs to spread. How do you spread enthusiasm for an idea? Nationalism, or very good propaganda, or both.

Because a revolution that stops at the national level stops altogether. The point of a socialist, or proletarian, revolution is the liberation all workers worldwide. If it stops at national borders, it means it recognizes those borders as a barrier that cannot be toppled. More on this in a moment as I respond to the rest of your point.

Besides- and this goes out in general to the revolutionaries and fiery-eyed Marxists I see on this thread and in the forums- the world can't all decide at once to become socialistic. Believe it or not, people may not want that, and that is fine to not want that in some cases. You cannot force them to adopt a political and economic system overnight because it is for some greater good, or because it may/may not alleviate the suffering of an underclass. I want social inequality to end or at least be significantly be reduced, but to force others to follow suit (only to, let's be honest, murder them because they are middle class or have wealth) is against the very fundamentals of choice and democracy. It was tried before, and you can argue all about "true" communism all you want, but in almost all attempts it has failed miserably, because it forced people to give stuff up that they didn't want to.

Here's the thing: you are ignoring perhaps the central, most important part of (Marxian) socialist theory, and that is class consciousness. Socialists believe that a revolution will occur spontaneously across the world when the workers not only become aware of their oppression, but have the strength and unity to do something about it. It isn't about making a change overnight: it is a slow, arduous journey to what socialists argue is the next step of mankind. Even then, a revolution is only the first step, as few socialist are going to tell you they have everything figured out from there. If they do, they're lying: most socialists believe that what comes next will be a wide series of internal debates within the working class as they assume power, deciding what this new future will look like and how it is to be organized most efficiently, with the common rules cemented by the revolution itself: to each according to his need, by each according to his ability.

No socialist wants to murder anyone, or at least, no *sane* socialist. The middle class is a fabrication of the capitalist system that exists purely as a way to drive a wedge between workers: you're either wealthy enough to own the means of production privately, and are thus a part of the bourgeoisie, or you're a worker who happens to have some economic stability and security, and are thus a proletarian. There is no "middle class." The only people who would potentially be killed are the bourgeois, should they refuse to relinquish their power peacefully, and those unfortunate proletarians who are forced or convinced to fight and kill their brethren. Every act of violence by the proletarians in the revolution, according to socialist theory, is an act of self defense against one's oppressors.

And you know what? No matter the cause, you cannot just force a group of people to hand over their property because Father Marxmas decided it was a naughty thing to do. He may have been right to an extent about capitalism then and now, but ultimately his idea was flawed. It was abused, yes, but let's be honest: like Nietzsche's philosophy (and I say this as an avid reader of the German dude's philosophy), it was pretty easy to abuse. For Friedrich, the Ubermensch was easily misunderstood as a literal strong man, the image of perfection, the Aryan. Using the banner of equality and the end to class conflict was attractive to those suffering from centuries of animosity and instability, and so your Lenins and your Maos and your Stalins did this to their advantage.

If the limit of your argument is "but evil men can take advantage," how can you possibly support any system in which people have choices in the matter? Socialism is no more susceptible to authoritarians than capitalism or any other system or ideology, which, spoiler alert, has produced its own dictators, genocides, and authoritarians. I fail to see how this argument is convincing to you, let alone others.

No true scotsman aside, communism can never happen. To be honest with you, I am glad it never will.

Some form of communism, in my opinion of the anarchistic variety, is inevitable. The question is how much damage capitalism will do before we get there.

[Kash Island]

Why can't you do both at different stages? After all, this hypothetical revolution has to start somewhere, i.e. in one country. Socialism has to begin in that one country and needs to spread. How do you spread enthusiasm for an idea? Nationalism, or very good propaganda, or both.

Because a revolution that stops at the national level stops altogether. The point of a socialist, or proletarian, revolution is the liberation all workers worldwide. If it stops at national borders, it means it recognizes those borders as a barrier that cannot be toppled. More on this in a moment as I respond to the rest of your point.

Besides- and this goes out in general to the revolutionaries and fiery-eyed Marxists I see on this thread and in the forums- the world can't all decide at once to become socialistic. Believe it or not, people may not want that, and that is fine to not want that in some cases. You cannot force them to adopt a political and economic system overnight because it is for some greater good, or because it may/may not alleviate the suffering of an underclass. I want social inequality to end or at least be significantly be reduced, but to force others to follow suit (only to, let's be honest, murder them because they are middle class or have wealth) is against the very fundamentals of choice and democracy. It was tried before, and you can argue all about "true" communism all you want, but in almost all attempts it has failed miserably, because it forced people to give stuff up that they didn't want to.

Here's the thing: you are ignoring perhaps the central, most important part of (Marxian) socialist theory, and that is class consciousness. Socialists believe that a revolution will occur spontaneously across the world when the workers not only become aware of their oppression, but have the strength and unity to do something about it. It isn't about making a change overnight: it is a slow, arduous journey to what socialists argue is the next step of mankind. Even then, a revolution is only the first step, as few socialist are going to tell you they have everything figured out from there. If they do, they're lying: most socialists believe that what comes next will be a wide series of internal debates within the working class as they assume power, deciding what this new future will look like and how it is to be organized most efficiently, with the common rules cemented by the revolution itself: to each according to his need, by each according to his ability.

No socialist wants to murder anyone, or at least, no *sane* socialist. The middle class is a fabrication of the capitalist system that exists purely as a way to drive a wedge between workers: you're either wealthy enough to own the means of production privately, and are thus a part of the bourgeoisie, or you're a worker who happens to have some economic stability and security, and are thus a proletarian. There is no "middle class." The only people who would potentially be killed are the bourgeois, should they refuse to relinquish their power peacefully, and those unfortunate proletarians who are forced or convinced to fight and kill their brethren. Every act of violence by the proletarians in the revolution, according to socialist theory, is an act of self defense against one's oppressors.

And you know what? No matter the cause, you cannot just force a group of people to hand over their property because Father Marxmas decided it was a naughty thing to do. He may have been right to an extent about capitalism then and now, but ultimately his idea was flawed. It was abused, yes, but let's be honest: like Nietzsche's philosophy (and I say this as an avid reader of the German dude's philosophy), it was pretty easy to abuse. For Friedrich, the Ubermensch was easily misunderstood as a literal strong man, the image of perfection, the Aryan. Using the banner of equality and the end to class conflict was attractive to those suffering from centuries of animosity and instability, and so your Lenins and your Maos and your Stalins did this to their advantage.

If the limit of your argument is "but evil men can take advantage," how can you possibly support any system in which people have choices in the matter? Socialism is no more susceptible to authoritarians than capitalism or any other system or ideology, which, spoiler alert, has produced its own dictators, genocides, and authoritarians. I fail to see how this argument is convincing to you, let alone others.

No true scotsman aside, communism can never happen. To be honest with you, I am glad it never will.

Some form of communism, in my opinion of the anarchistic variety, is inevitable. The question is how much damage capitalism will do before we get there.

The bolded is hands down a ANTIFA talking point.

[Ceannairceach]

The bolded is hands down a ANTIFA talking point.

It's just "Antifa." It's not an acronym. And of course it is: Antifa draw heavily from socialists and anarchists, and thus have similar ideas regarding self defense. For what it's worth, I don't support Antifa because their image is too tainted to save, though I am sympathetic to their cause and goals. Anyone who punches fascists and doesn't apologize for it is A-OK in my book.

[Yevraziyskaya Rus]

For tha sake of correctness, the thread will compare countries, regimes and movements which represented these ideologies. The argument that there was "no real" Socialist/Communist country might stand but they all aimed for it, and worked towards it. As for Fascism, the general broad view of Third Positionist governments will be taken, rather than Italian Fascism itself, this will though exclude right wing dictators who were not following any Third Positionist ideology.

The crimes of Fascist/Third Poistionist governments are no secret, and can easily be looked into given that they happened in a limited time frame, as well as mostly happening centered in Europe. As we all know, most of these crimes were committed by the National Socialist government and party of Germany, starting from their rise to power to their downfall. Aside starting a catastrophic war to feed it's ambition, it was it's brutal treatment and planned extermination of non-Germans, especially the Jews, which the world remembers. Fascist Italy, then the second largest combatant on the side of the axis in Europe, does not seem to have it's crimes well remembered. Having lead to the death of less people than it's German peer, it never the less committed horrible crimes in it's occupational zones, namely in Africa and the Adriatic coast, which range from war crimes to crimes against humanity, but also committed further crimes on their own soil, complying with Germany's anti-semitic policies. Other Fascist governments can be found in other axis alligned countries, such as Romania, the Independent State of Croatia, the First Slovak Republic, as well as collaborationist governments which held a Fascist conviction, such as Quisling's Norway or Nedic's Serbia.
This does not include Japan, which, even with it's similarities, never adopted a formal Fascist ideology, but rather an imperialist ultranationalist one. This can, admittedly be seen as a proto-fascist regime never the less, so we could include those victims too.

In conclusion: the contempt towards Fascist ideologies is widely known and a trait found in all modern democratic countries of the world, most notably those that fought against it. This contempt is mainly aimed at the National Socialists, and rightly so, given that they were the main "contirbutors" to such crimes against humanity.

But what about Socialist/Communist governments? In pure statistics, that death toll manages to "beat" the one inflicted by Fascism. The death caused by such regimes can be estimated to be ten times the ammount of the already mentioned Fascist ones. Unlike Facism, they happened through-out the globe, in a timeframe of nearly a century. It's long time existance outside of war, as well as it's application in different times and countries with different variations, is a good way to spot the failure of such an ideology as well.

While denial to horrible genocides such as the Holocaust is, thankfully, a crime in many countries, denial of Communist crimes, most notably the ones of the USSR, is almost not frowned upon, and sometimes there isn't enough light shed on it either. While anyone waving around a crooked cross are frowned upon, or the symbol might be even banned to begin with, waving around hammer and sicke signs is not as much frowned upon.

Which gives us the question: What causes such a thing?

I'd argue that it is pure ignorance. Many people try to point out how the USSR helped against Germany in WWII, but if one would look at the time before the war broke out between them, Stalin had no intent of attacking Hitler, in fact, providing him with valuable materials to fuel his war in the west. Not to forget that many countries which had suffered from Hitler's invasion fell pray to Stalin quickly after, experiencing five decades of torture and tyranny.
But also, it might have to do with the lack of education on that matter. Education has made National Socialist at least an unacceptable ideology in the modern world.

OP, what world are you living in where Socialism and Communism isn't frowned upon? Where students aren't indoctrinated in state funded schools to loath socialism as a system of constant famine, death squads, gulags and cults of personality? Where so much as calling yourself a Socialist wouldn't give you confused or ugly looks?

I swear to God, 90% of the time these threads are propped up on a ridiculously distorted view of reality that comes from their interactions with online communities.

[Kash Island]

The bolded is hands down a ANTIFA talking point.

It's just "Antifa." It's not an acronym. And of course it is: Antifa draw heavily from socialists and anarchists, and thus have similar ideas regarding self defense. For what it's worth, I don't support Antifa because their image is too tainted to save, though I am sympathetic to their cause and goals. Anyone who punches fascists and doesn't apologize for it is A-OK in my book.

meh, there law breaking scum whom hurt innocent people who first off are not even remotely fascist, and the fascists they do fight are most likley a few National Socialists(as for the tiny KKK, they are not in the same group, they are just racist's who also belief in constitutional republic)

[Kash Island]

For tha sake of correctness, the thread will compare countries, regimes and movements which represented these ideologies. The argument that there was "no real" Socialist/Communist country might stand but they all aimed for it, and worked towards it. As for Fascism, the general broad view of Third Positionist governments will be taken, rather than Italian Fascism itself, this will though exclude right wing dictators who were not following any Third Positionist ideology.

The crimes of Fascist/Third Poistionist governments are no secret, and can easily be looked into given that they happened in a limited time frame, as well as mostly happening centered in Europe. As we all know, most of these crimes were committed by the National Socialist government and party of Germany, starting from their rise to power to their downfall. Aside starting a catastrophic war to feed it's ambition, it was it's brutal treatment and planned extermination of non-Germans, especially the Jews, which the world remembers. Fascist Italy, then the second largest combatant on the side of the axis in Europe, does not seem to have it's crimes well remembered. Having lead to the death of less people than it's German peer, it never the less committed horrible crimes in it's occupational zones, namely in Africa and the Adriatic coast, which range from war crimes to crimes against humanity, but also committed further crimes on their own soil, complying with Germany's anti-semitic policies. Other Fascist governments can be found in other axis alligned countries, such as Romania, the Independent State of Croatia, the First Slovak Republic, as well as collaborationist governments which held a Fascist conviction, such as Quisling's Norway or Nedic's Serbia.
This does not include Japan, which, even with it's similarities, never adopted a formal Fascist ideology, but rather an imperialist ultranationalist one. This can, admittedly be seen as a proto-fascist regime never the less, so we could include those victims too.

In conclusion: the contempt towards Fascist ideologies is widely known and a trait found in all modern democratic countries of the world, most notably those that fought against it. This contempt is mainly aimed at the National Socialists, and rightly so, given that they were the main "contirbutors" to such crimes against humanity.

But what about Socialist/Communist governments? In pure statistics, that death toll manages to "beat" the one inflicted by Fascism. The death caused by such regimes can be estimated to be ten times the ammount of the already mentioned Fascist ones. Unlike Facism, they happened through-out the globe, in a timeframe of nearly a century. It's long time existance outside of war, as well as it's application in different times and countries with different variations, is a good way to spot the failure of such an ideology as well.

While denial to horrible genocides such as the Holocaust is, thankfully, a crime in many countries, denial of Communist crimes, most notably the ones of the USSR, is almost not frowned upon, and sometimes there isn't enough light shed on it either. While anyone waving around a crooked cross are frowned upon, or the symbol might be even banned to begin with, waving around hammer and sicke signs is not as much frowned upon.

Which gives us the question: What causes such a thing?

I'd argue that it is pure ignorance. Many people try to point out how the USSR helped against Germany in WWII, but if one would look at the time before the war broke out between them, Stalin had no intent of attacking Hitler, in fact, providing him with valuable materials to fuel his war in the west. Not to forget that many countries which had suffered from Hitler's invasion fell pray to Stalin quickly after, experiencing five decades of torture and tyranny.
But also, it might have to do with the lack of education on that matter. Education has made National Socialist at least an unacceptable ideology in the modern world.

OP, what world are you living in where Socialism and Communism isn't frowned upon? Where students aren't indoctrinated in state funded schools to loath socialism as a system of constant famine, death squads, gulags and cults of personality? Where so much as calling yourself a Socialist wouldn't give you confused or ugly looks?

I swear to God, 90% of the time these threads are propped up on a ridiculously distorted view of reality that comes from their interactions with online communities.

just as they are indoctrinated about Fascism, yeah...being misunderstood bites.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

If the limit of your argument is "but evil men can take advantage," how can you possibly support any system in which people have choices in the matter?

My argument is that communism is pretty easy to take advantage of. I am aware that is true of any system, but communism in particular has had its fair share of nasty characters. It's like the piece of shit that flies keep going to over and over again.

Also, about the Antifa thing, at what point does it stop becoming self-defense against oppressors?

[Kash Island]

If the limit of your argument is "but evil men can take advantage," how can you possibly support any system in which people have choices in the matter?

My argument is that communism is pretty easy to take advantage of. I am aware that is true of any system, but communism in particular has had its fair share of nasty characters. It's like the piece of shit that flies keep going to over and over again.

Also, about the Antifa thing, at what point does it stop becoming self-defense against oppressors?

until the proletariate is burning the homes of the rich comrade

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

My argument is that communism is pretty easy to take advantage of. I am aware that is true of any system, but communism in particular has had its fair share of nasty characters. It's like the piece of shit that flies keep going to over and over again.

Also, about the Antifa thing, at what point does it stop becoming self-defense against oppressors?

until the proletariate is burning the homes of the rich comrade

Oh, of course. Violence against people is great as long as it's for communism and to "free" people.

Nah, gonna nope out of that one.

[Kash Island]

until the proletariate is burning the homes of the rich comrade

Oh, of course. Violence against people is great as long as it's for communism and to "free" people.

Nah, gonna nope out of that one.

you know what's funny, at least Fascists know what they want, Empire, Strength, Unity, Class collaboration, Roman Style Spirit.

they don't lie about there intentions.