What do you think of Communism

[Sordhau]

And contrariwise let's also remember that if you were a Jewish person in 1930's Europe, you were probably a lot safer in the USSR than you were in vast stretches of the rest of the continent.

Only because by the end of the decade the USSR collaborated with the Nazis to allowing them to occupy the rest of Europe.

This is such an asinine line of thinking that ignores the entire context of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Stalin tried several times to secure an alliance with Britain and France against Germany; Britain actively sabotaged the negotiations, leaving Stalin no choice but to buy time for a war with Germany with the MBP.

[Aursi]

Imo, if communism is successfully done, then its good. But if it can't be done successfully, then its not alright. If the state has freedom of speech and everyone wants to be equal, everyone wants to work equally, if there are nothing forced, I support it. But, it never reaches that. It becomes Authoritarian and a Dictatorship overtime

[Nilokeras]

And contrariwise let's also remember that if you were a Jewish person in 1930's Europe, you were probably a lot safer in the USSR than you were in vast stretches of the rest of the continent.

Only because by the end of the decade the USSR collaborated with the Nazis to allowing them to occupy the rest of Europe.

Your timeline is wonky: MR was signed in 1939, at the quite literal end of the decade. And it only dealt with the partitioning of Poland. Consigning 'the rest of Europe' to the Nazis was something the other future Allied powers did through the Munich Agreement, not the USSR.

All of this is also besides the point that despite the MR, if you were a Soviet Jewish person you were still far and away better off than just about anywhere else in Europe at the time. Which again, does not excuse the antisemitism that was present in Soviet society, but it still remains in marked contrast to the casual cruelty of places like the UK in rejecting Jewish refugees or the outright hostility of countries in Central Europe.

[Alexiandra]

again --- when preparing for total war, you're going to have to engage in a bit of hypocrisy. nevermind the fact that the USSR was still industrializating up until barbarossa, and nevermind that every gram of steel counts when you're fighting against an existential threat --- especially without allies!

Ironically it was the USSR's vast resources which helped Germany come close to conquer it. Had it not been for the USSR's vital supply of grain, oil and raw resources to circumvent the British blockade (established after the UK's declaration of war), Nazi Germany would have run out of rubber and grain by June 1941, and oil by October.

The German war machine was constantly running on fumes, and it required enormous resources - whether by plunder or trade - to operate. Without critical Soviet grain and oil, Barbarossa wouldn't have even begun.

Source is Ericson (1999), Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933–1941.

You don't understand, clearly Stalin was playing 4D chess that us mere mortals are unable to comprehend.

[Duvniask]

Only because by the end of the decade the USSR collaborated with the Nazis to allowing them to occupy the rest of Europe.

This is such an asinine line of thinking that ignores the entire context of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Stalin tried several times to secure an alliance with Britain and France against Germany; Britain actively sabotaged the negotiations, leaving Stalin no choice but to buy time for a war with Germany with the MBP.

The USSR could've literally just not conducted business with Nazi Germany and their war effort would have started to fall apart on its own.

But of course, that's assuming we're not talking about geopolitical and economic opportunism, which is what this really was.

[Kalivyah]

This is such an asinine line of thinking that ignores the entire context of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Stalin tried several times to secure an alliance with Britain and France against Germany; Britain actively sabotaged the negotiations, leaving Stalin no choice but to buy time for a war with Germany with the MBP.

The USSR could've literally just not conducted business with Nazi Germany and their war effort would have started to fall apart on its own.

But of course, that's assuming we're not talking about geopolitical and economic opportunism, which is what this really was.

It was of a pragmatic approach. Stalin himself understood that a German invasion was inevitable and in particular wished to keep Hitler on his "good side" so that the inevitable would be postponed, and that meant supplying Hitler with much needed resources which assumedly would be used in the west rather than the east. It may have seemed stupid in hindsight to provide your enemy with the means to destroy you; but it was expected by the time that Hitler went to war with the Soviets (which, to Stalin, would be years later than 1941) that Soviet industry and in particular the military would have recovered from the effects of the Great Purge and been able to properly put up a defense against the Germans. There was a belief that if the Soviets just kept to the agreement that the Germans would have just kept to themselves and used it against Britain. There was never a belief that the non-aggression pact would have lasted forever but to the Soviets "later" was always better than "now".

[Nilokeras]

This is such an asinine line of thinking that ignores the entire context of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Stalin tried several times to secure an alliance with Britain and France against Germany; Britain actively sabotaged the negotiations, leaving Stalin no choice but to buy time for a war with Germany with the MBP.

The USSR could've literally just not conducted business with Nazi Germany and their war effort would have started to fall apart on its own.

But of course, that's assuming we're not talking about geopolitical and economic opportunism, which is what this really was.

I mean in the 1930s the breadth of policies towards Nazi Germany was either breathtaking naivete/sympathy or opportunistically keeping your enemy off your throat for another few months. I know which one I have more sympathy for, with the benefit of hindsight.

[Senkaku]

The USSR could've literally just not conducted business with Nazi Germany and their war effort would have started to fall apart on its own.

But of course, that's assuming we're not talking about geopolitical and economic opportunism, which is what this really was.

It was of a pragmatic approach. Stalin himself understood that a German invasion was inevitable and in particular wished to keep Hitler on his "good side" so that the inevitable would be postponed, and that meant supplying Hitler with much needed resources which assumedly would be used in the west rather than the east. It may have seemed stupid in hindsight to provide your enemy with the means to destroy you; but it was expected by the time that Hitler went to war with the Soviets (which, to Stalin, would be years later than 1941) that Soviet industry and in particular the military would have recovered from the effects of the Great Purge and been able to properly put up a defense against the Germans. There was a belief that if the Soviets just kept to the agreement that the Germans would have just kept to themselves and used it against Britain. There was never a belief that the non-aggression pact would have lasted forever but to the Soviets "later" was always better than "now".

They pragmatically made a short term truce with a hated enemy whose attack they knew to be inevitable, and then pragmatically assumed it would hold forever, and then were pragmatically completely surprised when the thing they apparently knew was coming the whole time actually happened, leading to an insane percentage of their population dying horribly. What are you even trying to argue or defend here? It was one of the dumbest self-owns of all time and it appears to have given Stalin himself a week-long panic attack. As with the French and British, if they’d just kicked the Germans in the teeth sometime in the mid-‘30s, the whole problem could’ve been avoided— instead the Russians helped train up the Luftwaffe and the panzer divisions and then cut a deal to help them fund the war, while the French and British were busy hand-wringing and trying to keep trade stable.

[Torrocca]

It was of a pragmatic approach. Stalin himself understood that a German invasion was inevitable and in particular wished to keep Hitler on his "good side" so that the inevitable would be postponed, and that meant supplying Hitler with much needed resources which assumedly would be used in the west rather than the east. It may have seemed stupid in hindsight to provide your enemy with the means to destroy you; but it was expected by the time that Hitler went to war with the Soviets (which, to Stalin, would be years later than 1941) that Soviet industry and in particular the military would have recovered from the effects of the Great Purge and been able to properly put up a defense against the Germans. There was a belief that if the Soviets just kept to the agreement that the Germans would have just kept to themselves and used it against Britain. There was never a belief that the non-aggression pact would have lasted forever but to the Soviets "later" was always better than "now".

They pragmatically made a short term truce with a hated enemy whose attack they knew to be inevitable, and then pragmatically assumed it would hold forever, and then were pragmatically completely surprised when the thing they apparently knew was coming the whole time actually happened, leading to an insane percentage of their population dying horribly. What are you even trying to argue or defend here? It was one of the dumbest self-owns of all time and it appears to have given Stalin himself a week-long panic attack. As with the French and British, if they’d just kicked the Germans in the teeth sometime in the mid-‘30s, the whole problem could’ve been avoided— instead the Russians helped train up the Luftwaffe and the panzer divisions and then cut a deal to help them fund the war, while the French and British were busy hand-wringing and trying to keep trade stable.

To be fair, who could really expect the Nazis at the time to be brazen enough to open up a second front and have the European Axis taking hits from two directions? It's one thing to see them pushing further and further with appeasement against French and British inaction and expect that, it's another entirely to realize Nazi leadership also fucking batshit and had no qualms trying to tear through tens of thousands of kilometers of land.

Also, similarly with how French and British inaction was built by a post-WWI aversion to war, it's not unreasonable to argue that the Soviet leadership might've felt similarly to a massive war - which is why this doesn't translate over to the invasion of Finland, because they probably assumed that wouldn't be a large, bloody conflict by comparison. So it makes sense to some degree that they also chose to appease the Axis - who, again, could only reasonably be assumed until the last moments of being decently smart and not trying to fight everyone all at once - instead of choosing war immediately, even when not accounting for other things such as the Great Purge.

[Betoni]

The USSR could've literally just not conducted business with Nazi Germany and their war effort would have started to fall apart on its own.

But of course, that's assuming we're not talking about geopolitical and economic opportunism, which is what this really was.

I mean in the 1930s the breadth of policies towards Nazi Germany was either breathtaking naivete/sympathy or opportunistically keeping your enemy off your throat for another few months. I know which one I have more sympathy for, with the benefit of hindsight.

Yeah, tells a story about your moral compass doesnt it when you symphatize with the Soviets annexing the baltics, half of Poland and attacking Finland to keep some third country off their throat.

[Senkaku]

They pragmatically made a short term truce with a hated enemy whose attack they knew to be inevitable, and then pragmatically assumed it would hold forever, and then were pragmatically completely surprised when the thing they apparently knew was coming the whole time actually happened, leading to an insane percentage of their population dying horribly. What are you even trying to argue or defend here? It was one of the dumbest self-owns of all time and it appears to have given Stalin himself a week-long panic attack. As with the French and British, if they’d just kicked the Germans in the teeth sometime in the mid-‘30s, the whole problem could’ve been avoided— instead the Russians helped train up the Luftwaffe and the panzer divisions and then cut a deal to help them fund the war, while the French and British were busy hand-wringing and trying to keep trade stable.

To be fair, who could really expect the Nazis at the time to be brazen enough to open up a second front and have the European Axis taking hits from two directions? It's one thing to see them pushing further and further with appeasement against French and British inaction and expect that, it's another entirely to realize Nazi leadership also fucking batshit and had no qualms trying to tear through tens of thousands of kilometers of land.

Also, similarly with how French and British inaction was built by a post-WWI aversion to war, it's not unreasonable to argue that the Soviet leadership might've felt similarly to a massive war - which is why this doesn't translate over to the invasion of Finland, because they probably assumed that wouldn't be a large, bloody conflict by comparison. So it makes sense to some degree that they also chose to appease the Axis - who, again, could only reasonably be assumed until the last moments of being decently smart and not trying to fight everyone all at once - instead of choosing war immediately, even when not accounting for other things such as the Great Purge.

Lots of massive historical errors seemed like there were reasonable arguments in favor of them at the time (the Soviet invasion of Finland, for example). I think with the benefit of hindsight, knowing what we know now about the Nazi regime and its development (and knowing what we know the Soviets’ much-vaunted intelligence services told them at the time), we can say appeasement, secret rearmament assistance, and MR were a chain of extremely stupid decisions, even if we can understand why they were made. It’s also “understandable” why people instinctively try to put out grease and wax fires with water, that doesn’t make trying it a good idea.

[Torrocca]

To be fair, who could really expect the Nazis at the time to be brazen enough to open up a second front and have the European Axis taking hits from two directions? It's one thing to see them pushing further and further with appeasement against French and British inaction and expect that, it's another entirely to realize Nazi leadership also fucking batshit and had no qualms trying to tear through tens of thousands of kilometers of land.

Also, similarly with how French and British inaction was built by a post-WWI aversion to war, it's not unreasonable to argue that the Soviet leadership might've felt similarly to a massive war - which is why this doesn't translate over to the invasion of Finland, because they probably assumed that wouldn't be a large, bloody conflict by comparison. So it makes sense to some degree that they also chose to appease the Axis - who, again, could only reasonably be assumed until the last moments of being decently smart and not trying to fight everyone all at once - instead of choosing war immediately, even when not accounting for other things such as the Great Purge.

Lots of massive historical errors seemed like there were reasonable arguments in favor of them at the time (the Soviet invasion of Finland, for example). I think with the benefit of hindsight, knowing what we know now about the Nazi regime and its development (and knowing what we know the Soviets’ much-vaunted intelligence services told them at the time), we can say appeasement, secret rearmament assistance, and MR were a chain of extremely stupid decisions, even if we can understand why they were made. It’s also “understandable” why people instinctively try to put out grease and wax fires with water, that doesn’t make trying it a good idea.

Well, yeah, I wasn't saying it was any good. It's just understandable and somewhat reasonable why they did what they did. Stupid, absolutely, but not the most unreasonable gamble to take when the choice is between "war right now" and "assume the Fascists aren't batshit whacko and willing to fight every superpower on the planet".

[Nilokeras]

I mean in the 1930s the breadth of policies towards Nazi Germany was either breathtaking naivete/sympathy or opportunistically keeping your enemy off your throat for another few months. I know which one I have more sympathy for, with the benefit of hindsight.

Yeah, tells a story about your moral compass doesnt it when you symphatize with the Soviets annexing the baltics, half of Poland and attacking Finland to keep some third country off their throat.

Sympathy in terms of whether or not a decision made sense within the political framework each country was working within and whether or not that decision panned out. Appeasement is a much more nonsensical proposition in the 1930's than the idea of buying time to prepare for an inevitable invasion.

[Krasny-Volny]

For me, Communism is underrated, coming from a democratic guy, No matter what their party Communist, Liberal, etc they shall be equal to others, I know I sound like the Founding Fathers but it's true. Most people think Communism = Non-American, but there are some countries that are Communist that give aid to western nations. I'm not trying to say I support dictatorships, I am trying to say that I don't care whether your Communist or Liberal, I will still be friends with you. People think that I'm Communist when I'm not, I'm gonna admit this, I like Russia, and people are still friends with me, honestly no one cares that your Communist, Liberal, Socialist whatever, your shoes or party doesn't matter. You are treated based on what you did, not your race, religion, party, etc. That's my personal opinion.

If there’s anything the twentieth century taught us, it’s that communist revolutions rarely adhere to their ideals but experience a trend towards re-centralization of power and increasing authoritarianism over time. The Bolshevik revolution was an excellent example of this, resulting in the establishment of a very centralized and top heavy authoritarian socialist state.

I suspect this is because communism places such a heavy emphasis on armed struggle and revolution. Armed revolutionaries who overthrow the previous regime by force rarely make for free and fair institutions, any more than run of the mill military coup plotters who overthrow civilian governments.

I’m deeply skeptical of modern ideologies that emphasize domestic revolutions for this reason, as I believe there’s a strong likelihood they will produce authoritarian regimes.

[Nilokeras]

If there’s anything the twentieth century taught us, it’s that communist revolutions rarely adhere to their ideals but experience a trend towards re-centralization of power and increasing authoritarianism over time. The Bolshevik revolution was an excellent example of this, resulting in the establishment of a very centralized and top heavy authoritarian socialist states.

This is a strange objection considering that the Bolsheviks were always very up front about their reasoning for why they organized their party the way they did and how they intended to get into power, and got quite a bit of power through people choosing to side with them. We can certainly argue about whether that strategy was successful or helped them in the long run but there was never any real hypocrisy on that front.

[Transsibiria]

If there’s anything the twentieth century taught us, it’s that communist revolutions rarely adhere to their ideals but experience a trend towards re-centralization of power and increasing authoritarianism over time. The Bolshevik revolution was an excellent example of this, resulting in the establishment of a very centralized and top heavy authoritarian socialist state.

I suspect this is because communism places such a heavy emphasis on armed struggle and revolution. Armed revolutionaries who overthrow the previous regime by force rarely make for free and fair institutions, any more than run of the mill military coup plotters who overthrow civilian governments.

I’m deeply skeptical of modern ideologies that emphasize domestic revolutions for this reason, as I believe there’s a strong likelihood they will produce authoritarian regimes.

It's mostly because the October Revolution did set the example for other people to follow or emulate. It was by no means set in stone that of all the many left wing movements it would be Lenin the one to emerge triumphant and establish the first socialist state. It could have been as well another movement in another country.

[Sordhau]

I’m deeply skeptical of modern ideologies that emphasize domestic revolutions for this reason, as I believe there’s a strong likelihood they will produce authoritarian regimes.

Checks out. The USA is definitely a repressive hellhole.

[Sagadahock]

I’m deeply skeptical of modern ideologies that emphasize domestic revolutions for this reason, as I believe there’s a strong likelihood they will produce authoritarian regimes.

Checks out. The USA is definitely a repressive hellhole.

I just don't get this. America isn't perfect, but it's still one of the best countries in the world. We enjoy a wide variety of political and civil rights that many others could only dream of. America needs to fix a lot of shit, but I don't see how you can honestly say with a straight face that it is a hellhole.

[Sordhau]

Checks out. The USA is definitely a repressive hellhole.

I just don't get this. America isn't perfect, but it's still one of the best countries in the world. We enjoy a wide variety of political and civil rights that many others could only dream of. America needs to fix a lot of shit, but I don't see how you can honestly say with a straight face that it is a hellhole.

Because the "rights" we have are seldom enforced and routinely broken by the very people who are supposed to protect them, and this has been the case for our entire existence as a country.

[Laasmistan]

Checks out. The USA is definitely a repressive hellhole.

I just don't get this. America isn't perfect, but it's still one of the best countries in the world. We enjoy a wide variety of political and civil rights that many others could only dream of. America needs to fix a lot of shit, but I don't see how you can honestly say with a straight face that it is a hellhole.

If you're poor, disabled, a POC, LGBTQA+, and probably some other things I'm forgetting then America is definitely a hellhole. Just to give one example I know of American diabetics who literally have to ration insulin (which is EXTREMELY dangerous) because they cannot afford to buy it often.

[Caucafrica]

If you're poor, disabled, a POC, LGBTQA+, and probably some other things I'm forgetting then America is definitely a hellhole. Just to give one example I know of American diabetics who literally have to ration insulin (which is EXTREMELY dangerous) because they cannot afford to buy it often.

How is America a hellhole if you're black or gay? Better than literally most countries in the world, especially in recent times.

[Sordhau]

If you're poor, disabled, a POC, LGBTQA+, and probably some other things I'm forgetting then America is definitely a hellhole. Just to give one example I know of American diabetics who literally have to ration insulin (which is EXTREMELY dangerous) because they cannot afford to buy it often.

How is America a hellhole if you're black or gay? Better than literally most countries in the world, especially in recent times.

People are literally murdered for being black, gay, or both literally all the time - sometimes by the police! What rock have you been living under?

[Laasmistan]

If you're poor, disabled, a POC, LGBTQA+, and probably some other things I'm forgetting then America is definitely a hellhole. Just to give one example I know of American diabetics who literally have to ration insulin (which is EXTREMELY dangerous) because they cannot afford to buy it often.

How is America a hellhole if you're black or gay? Better than literally most countries in the world, especially in recent times.

You get murdered simply for being gay or black, especially black. Happens all the time. Have you missed the entire BLM thing that was going on?

[Adirondack Commonwealth]

Only because by the end of the decade the USSR collaborated with the Nazis to allowing them to occupy the rest of Europe.

Your timeline is wonky: MR was signed in 1939, at the quite literal end of the decade. And it only dealt with the partitioning of Poland. Consigning 'the rest of Europe' to the Nazis was something the other future Allied powers did through the Munich Agreement, not the USSR.

All of this is also besides the point that despite the MR, if you were a Soviet Jewish person you were still far and away better off than just about anywhere else in Europe at the time. Which again, does not excuse the antisemitism that was present in Soviet society, but it still remains in marked contrast to the casual cruelty of places like the UK in rejecting Jewish refugees or the outright hostility of countries in Central Europe.

It also dealt with the baltics, Finland, and Bessarabia.

[Adirondack Commonwealth]

Yeah, tells a story about your moral compass doesnt it when you symphatize with the Soviets annexing the baltics, half of Poland and attacking Finland to keep some third country off their throat.

Sympathy in terms of whether or not a decision made sense within the political framework each country was working within and whether or not that decision panned out. Appeasement is a much more nonsensical proposition in the 1930's than the idea of buying time to prepare for an inevitable invasion.

Considering Stalin refused to believe any and all reports that the Germans were going to invade even when Germans were crossing the border I doubt this line of apologetics.

In fact Stalin can be credited for a lot of early German success in the East by refusing to prepare for it.