Current Events > Do you guys even know what is the difference betw. facism and communism?

(+) Yeah! (+)

i don't even know what the difference between democracy and gerontocracy is

---

scar the 1 posted...

I don't really burn for tankies, but it's interesting to learn about some of the social programs/policies that the Soviet Union implemented. They were very early in legalizing abortion, for example (although Stalin rolled that back), and from what I can tell they also had good literacy programs, as well as things like guaranteed paid leave and other things that still aren't implemented in America.

...that said it's perfectly possible to still criticize the USSR and Stalin's crimes. I just think it's interesting as a layperson, learning a more complete picture about what happened. We tend to get marinated in the view that the Soviet Union was bad in every imaginable way, but in fact there were some interesting things there as well, that sort of gets left out.

Yes, this is what people are talking about when we use the term critical support. The frustration comes when, for example, someone like Bernie acknowledges how great Cubas literacy programs were and then people conflate that with him saying nothing bad has ever happened in Cuba.

I dont think you do this but a lot of people who go around accusing others of being tankies only do so because the alleged tankies dont treat fallen socialist states like the USSR as the complete cartoon villains whose only goal was to bring misery to the world that Red Scare propaganda tried to paint them as.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

People usually get labeled tankies for defending human rights violations and pretending everything they dont like about imperial communist countries is CIA propaganda.

I've seen both this and what Shablagoo is describing. It's a messy topic of conversation to say the least. Because there is a lot of propaganda about e.g., China and Soviet. There are naturally also a lot of bad things, and people will be happy to seize on individual comments as proof that someone praises human rights violations because of the gotcha culture of internet message boards (or, I suppose this performative culture is common anywhere where people with differing world views meet).

---

shockthemonkey posted...

People usually get labeled tankies for defending human rights violations and pretending everything they dont like about imperial communist countries is CIA propaganda.

This. Just a reminder the only program Shab defended from the Soviet Union in this topic was making a pact with Hitler to divide and conquer Eastern Europe. He got warned for defending the ongoing genocide in China. Then he has a topic throwing shade at Hong Kong protesters.

What is this critical support you want us to know about Shab? Outlawing striking and forming your own labor unions? Working 9 to 9 for 6 days a week? Landlords being allowed to evict people for any reason including being black without consequence (there was a mass eviction of black people in China this year, and the CIA didn't fake the piles of videos of black people in China being forced onto the streets during the coronavirus lockdown).

You let me know when one of your tankie states actually does something relevant to socialism and then I will consider it critical support.

---

scar the 1 posted...

I've seen both this and what Shablagoo is describing. It's a messy topic of conversation to say the least. Because there is a lot of propaganda about e.g., China and Soviet. There are naturally also a lot of bad things, and people will be happy to seize on individual comments as proof that someone praises human rights violations because of the gotcha culture of internet message boards (or, I suppose this performative culture is common anywhere where people with differing world views meet).

"tankie" is a buzzword that means either "someone to the left of me" or "someone who approves of the soviet union more than me" and as such is completely based on the politics of the person using the word

like there are centrist dems who refer to Bernie supporters as tankies. it's meaningless


---

shockthemonkey posted...

Tankies: tankie is a meaningless term

you should consider engaging with the idea I presented, and the reasoning behind it, instead of outright dismissing it

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Tankies: tankie is a meaningless term
Also tankies: its not a human rights violation when the Soviet Union/China does it, its CIA propaganda

I mean I've seen people be called tankies for pointing out that Cuban refugees used to be slave owners

---

harley2280 posted...

It just happens that the majority of communist countries have also had a fascist Government.

So communists can be fascists?

I mean Mussolini was a fan of Marx originally.

shockthemonkey posted...

You should stop denying historical facts because you want to defend imperialists

don't deflect. "tankie" is a meaningless buzzword regardless of whether or not I've actually done that

---

shockthemonkey posted...

okay. get back to me when you want to have a conversation about this like an adult

---

RustyFerret posted...

So communists can be fascists?

I mean Mussolini was a fan of Marx originally.

Yeah, but he got expelled from the Italian Socialist Party for advocating intervention in WW1, because ultimately he was more nationalist in leaning. He was inspired by Gabriele D'Annunzio's attempted seizure of Fiume for Italy after the war to seize power.

shockthemonkey posted...

This is like when Trump supporters say that racist has lost all meaning

[Ron Howard voice]
it wasn't.

for those following along:

racism is a system that exists in society. there are people who support this system. those people are called "racists"

there are also things people say and do that are in line with this system. "racist" is a descriptive term for such words and actions.

by contrast, "tankie-ism" is not a societal system. it also isn't an ideology. "tankie" is a slang term, and it isn't even a descriptive term. it's exclusively a pejorative, and who it's referring to depends greatly on the person using it. thus, there is no concrete definition.

so if anyone wants to avoid looking like the text equivalent of a rabid dog, just learn to be precise with your language and avoid the horseshoe theory bullshit.

this has been a public service announcement

---

Communism is an economic system that has nothing to do with politics. Fascism is a political ideology.

You can have communism and gay rights, or you can have communism and concentration camps for gay people. Stalin hated Hitler's guts but rather liked his idea of concentration camps.

People did starve to death by millions under Stalin's communism but it's because Stalin himself engineered the famine. This is just the sort of thing that happens when you have an autocratic authoritarian regardless of the economic policy. It's happened plenty of times throughout history before Marx's great granddad even existed.

So many people in China were killed in the name of Legalism during the Qin dynasty. While it disappears later around the time the Han rose to power it makes a comeback eventually under..... You guessed it. Mao Zedong.

---

So happy that joel blocked me for calling him a tankie once

---

RustyFerret posted...

I mean Mussolini was a fan of Marx originally.

Mussolini was a fan of Marx until he saw an opportunity to wholesale turn on that particular ideology in favor of one that would spread Italy's prominence to other parts of the world by going to war.

The similarities of facism and communism are similarities that facism and communism share with other systems as well, it isn't a direct link from one or the other. In fact, I hesitate to attempt to link them at all because facism in places where facism was actually any degree of successful sprung up largely in opposition to prominent socialist or liberal movements at the time, and that's including facist Italy. A common first step in those regimes is rallying the middle class to destroy labor organizations. A common next step is purging marxists from government (and usually purging them from the Earth one things progress far enough).

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Communism is an economic system that has nothing to do with politics. Fascism is a political ideology.

You can have communism and gay rights, or you can have communism and concentration camps for gay people. Stalin hated Hitler's guts but rather liked his idea of concentration camps.

People did starve to death by millions under Stalin's communism but it's because Stalin himself engineered the famine. This is just the sort of thing that happens when you have an autocratic authoritarian regardless of the economic policy. It's happened plenty of times throughout history before Marx's great granddad even existed.

So many people in China were killed in the name of Legalism during the Qin dynasty. While it disappears later around the time the Han rose to power it makes a comeback eventually under..... You guessed it. Mao Zedong.

The key takeaway from this should be the mistake of calling what the Soviet Union was under Stalin "communism",

It's easy to make a lot of fallacious arguments about it by saying "oh X number of bad things happened under communism during Stalin era SU" but the argument is bad from the get go.

---

Gwynevere posted...

The key takeaway from this should be the mistake of calling what the Soviet Union was under Stalin "communism",

It's easy to make a lot of fallacious arguments about it by saying "oh X number of bad things happened under communism during Stalin era SU" but the argument is bad from the get go.

It was communism but the bad things that happened didn't happen because of communism, they happened because of Stalin. People weren't sent to Gulags because they thought communism was shitty they got sent for criticizing the government. There's plenty of failed capitalist states as well but they didn't fail because of capitalism. Countries fail because the people who get power destroy them when something threatens their power, or because they're overrun by another country in an invasion.

The thing is when you attribute success to your beliefs, it makes other people want to adopt your beliefs. It especially helps when a belief opposed to yours is failing you can also attribute that failure to that belief instead of the person fucking everything up.

To date the only truly successful & peaceful communism is Vietnam. They're even running a one party system for politics. They're successful not because of communism but because the people there actually give a shit about others as fellow humans.


---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Communism is an economic system that has nothing to do with politics

That is completely untrue.

The entire ideological aspect of communism is steeped in political claims about the nature of wealth, power, class, and oppression in regards to itself and capitalism.

RustyFerret posted...

That is completely untrue.

The entire ideological aspect of communism is steeped in political claims about the nature of wealth, power, class, and oppression in regards to itself and capitalism.

Capitalism is also an economic system and independent of political affiliation. Capitalism is, in fact, the "default" economy under anarchy. Communism only exists when imposed by an authority with the power to do so.

---

scar the 1 posted...

I mean I've seen people be called tankies for pointing out that Cuban refugees used to be slave owners

there is also plenty of opportunity to argue in bad faith when it comes to something like that. there have been numerous generations of cuban refugees, and to insist that hundreds of thousands of people were all rich plantation owners or violent criminals is downright ludicrous.

---

Delirious_Beard posted...

there is also plenty of opportunity to argue in bad faith when it comes to something like that. there have been numerous generations of cuban refugees, and to insist that hundreds of thousands of people were all rich plantation owners or violent criminals is downright ludicrous.

I agree!

---

Delirious_Beard posted...

there is also plenty of opportunity to argue in bad faith when it comes to something like that. there have been numerous generations of cuban refugees, and to insist that hundreds of thousands of people were all rich plantation owners or violent criminals is downright ludicrous.

sure there's plenty of opportunity for arguing in bad faith, but what has that opportunity actually been used for?

the fact is that most Cubans were better off under Castro than under Batista. the Cubans who fled to the US tended to be those who were better off under Batista. that's a pretty specific demographic. they were more likely to be rich, and more likely to support Batista's fascist dictatorship.

there's also just as much opportunity for arguing in bad faith against the people who ousted that fascist dictatorship, and by god, that opportunity has been taken full advantage of. it's been used for a hell of a lot more than jokes on twitter

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

It was communism but the bad things that happened didn't happen because of communism, they happened because of Stalin. People weren't sent to Gulags because they thought communism was shitty they got sent for criticizing the government. There's plenty of failed capitalist states as well but they didn't fail because of capitalism. Countries fail because the people who get power destroy them when something threatens their power, or because they're overrun by another country in an invasion.

The thing is when you attribute success to your beliefs, it makes other people want to adopt your beliefs. It especially helps when a belief opposed to yours is failing you can also attribute that failure to that belief instead of the person fucking everything up.

To date the only truly successful & peaceful communism is Vietnam. They're even running a one party system for politics. They're successful not because of communism but because the people there actually give a shit about others as fellow humans.

It wasn't Communism, and neither is Vietnam. Vietnam is a socialist republic, and Stalin's Soviet Union was essentially a dictatorship.

Communism has a pretty rigorous definition despite how many people (even self proclaimed communists) seem to view it. It's a classless, stateless society akin to anarchism, where the gap between those at the bottom of society and those at the top is as small as possible, ideally nonexistent

---

Gwynevere posted...

Vietnam is a socialist republic

Vietnam is extremely capitalist and it's a one party state where you don't get to vote for who runs the party. So a lot like the PRC. Countries that call themselves socialist but in practice are entirely capitalist, aren't socialist. Just like calling yourself a democracy but not having actual elections doesn't make you a democracy.

---

ssjevot posted...

Vietnam is extremely capitalist and it's a one party state where you don't get to vote for who runs the party. So a lot like the PRC. Countries that call themselves socialist but in practice are entirely capitalist, aren't socialist. Just like calling yourself a democracy but not having actual elections doesn't make you a democracy.

I saw a decent argument for why Vietnam is still socialist, but it was also an admission that they did a lot of capitalist reforms, essentially because otherwise they would still be shut out of the global markets, essentially unable to trade etc. But it was a point made from a northern Vietnamese person and I don't really know the situation well enough to say if it's right or wrong but it was pretty interesting to see that perspective

---

Do workers control the means of production in Vietnam or are they forced to work in terrible conditions for little money for the benefit of corporations? That should answer the question.

---

ssjevot posted...

Do workers control the means of production in Vietnam or are they forced to work in terrible conditions for little money for the benefit of corporations? That should answer the question.

Agreed. You probably know a lot more on the subject than I do.
I did hear some interesting things though, about things like their system incentivizing joining collectives and such. But again it's my understanding that they essentially needed to make capitalist restructuring efforts to be allowed to enter the global market. I think the argument of the youtuber I saw was mainly that it's socialism because it's still a collectivist system with the end goal of achieving communism. I'll send you the link if you're interested.

---

scar the 1 posted...

Agreed. You probably know a lot more on the subject than I do.
I did hear some interesting things though, about things like their system incentivizing joining collectives and such. But again it's my understanding that they essentially needed to make capitalist restructuring efforts to be allowed to enter the global market. I think the argument of the youtuber I saw was mainly that it's socialism because it's still a collectivist system with the end goal of achieving communism. I'll send you the link if you're interested.

Yeah hook me up. I like hearing from the source. No one in my family even tries to claim China is communist because they don't care if it is or isn't. They're either nationalist or not and don't really care about the underlying economics. Some of them are landlords and business owners so I guess it gives them incentive not to want to think too much about what is or isn't socialist.

---

ssjevot posted...

Do workers control the means of production in Vietnam or are they forced to work in terrible conditions for little money for the benefit of corporations?

Neither. Vietnam has rebuilt itself extremely well after the mass (and human-rights-defiling) destruction caused by the U.S., but it is transitionary and has not yet achieved full-on communism.

---

Shablagoo posted...

Neither. Vietnam has rebuilt itself extremely well after the mass (and human-rights-defiling) destruction caused by the U.S., but it is transitionary and has not yet achieved full-on communism.

I highly doubt that it is transitionary. That is a tankie buzzword that has no meaning in reality since no state that proclaimed that has ever gone in any direction other than more capitalist. I watched the earlier talked about video and it was hard to reconcile that with official government police of 48 hour works weeks, low minimum wage, most people being employed informally, no ability to form labor unions, and the presence of many international corporations factories which have no shortage or articles accusing them of using child labor, unpaid labor, and terrible working conditions. Though the farms at least appear to be collectivist and their are some price controls in place, but it's debatable what value those actually add to the system (who cares if prices are controlled if you have to work overtime during an already 48 hour work week just to get by).

If you want to convince me a country that says it is socialist actually cares about workers or is "on the path to socialism", the workers should at least be doing better than the poorest workers in the EU. If you aren't doing better than welfare state capitalism (social democracy), what is the incentive to embrace the "Marxist-Dictator's Name" system? If you lose your rights and have to live in a single party state run by a dictatorship that is allegedly for the proletariat shouldn't you at least get some basic workers rights and good living conditions?

And yes what the US did in the past to Vietnam was terrible and cannot be justified, but now they're basically allies with Vietnam (in opposition to China), so it's kind of an inconvenient narrative to explain the modern situation. I think Vietnam has a chance to become yet another capitalist state with decent quality of life for workers, but I don't buy this road to socialism stuff at all. At least it isn't sitting at the most millionaires and billionaires in the world unlike their Northern neighbor.

---

I suppose it could be debated whether the policies they have right now are "because of pressure from capitalists" or "because of crony 'fake' socialists" but it's definitely not a good look either way. And I'm not sure that distinction necessarily helps.

---

scar the 1 posted...

I suppose it could be debated whether the policies they have right now are "because of pressure from capitalists" or "because of crony 'fake' socialists" but it's definitely not a good look either way. And I'm not sure that distinction necessarily helps.

Yeah that's the problem I have with the argument they present. Let's say it isn't their fault and it's the capitalist countries' fault. How does that help the actual people? With most leftists they seem to generally care about workers and equality. But with tankies it often feels like all they care about is the aesthetic and feel a need to defend the system no matter how bad it is for the actual workers. Let's even pretend China is for real and in 2070 they will start transitioning to socialism. How is that helpful to workers suffering now? They will largely be dead or retired by then. Why should they have to suffer for an alleged future? And saying it's the capitalists fault doesn't explain why they have to suffer under brutal conditions compared to the capitalist social democracies. If they have to have capitalism for now, why can't it be of the more humane variety?

---

ssjevot posted...

If they have to have capitalism for now, why can't it be of the more humane variety?

I agree with your sentiment generally, but I also don't really know if this is a fair question. Because the pressure global west can put on poor countries is quite large, so while I'm not saying it is because I don't know, it might be that their hands are tied in some respect.
But that still leads to your first point - they should still care about workers and equality, rather than defend the system. What's interesting is the notion that I've seen from some people that a sort of collectivist culture was already present in Vietnam for centuries/millennia, meaning it would be easier or more natural for them to be able to establish something socialist/communist compared to the west. And I'm sure there's some truth to that - it's definitely not beyond imagination that different cultures have varying degrees of collectivism, and things like that tend to grow over very long periods of time.

---

No clue. I'm not even sure what capitalism is lol. Something to do with buying stuff?

---

Have you ever been to Vietnam, or China?

Dyinglegacy posted...

No clue. I'm not even sure what capitalism is lol. Something to do with buying stuff?

On a basic level, it is private ownership of the means of production.

---

Shablagoo posted...

Have you ever been to Vietnam, or China?

Half my family lives in China. Do you not read my posts? I have been there multiple times for lengthy periods. I was in Wuhan last year during the lockdown for a month and half (most of it under lockdown). China has largely unrestrained capitalism and a massive consumer economy with large inequality. You should go to China. That's the single best way you could finally realize it isn't remotely communist.

https://jingdaily.com/whats-behind-the-rise-in-inequality-and-consumerism/

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/12/survey-suggests-china-may-be-most-materialistic-country-world/356199/

---

You also seem to be conflating geopolitics with economics and that is causing you to group Vietnam and China together. Vietnam is in the US sphere and buys weapons from the US and has fought a more recent war with and still has ongoing territory disputes with China. The US doesn't give two shits what your government or stated economic system is, it just cares whose side you are on. That's why Saudi Arabia can be a close ally and Iran a hated enemy. Thinking of the Cold War as a battle of ideologies ignores why the US chose to work with China to oppose the Soviet Union during the latter part of the Cold War (and even earlier chose to provide aid the Yugoslavia in 1948 after they split with the Soviets). The Soviet Union was defeated but now China is the geopolitical rival so suddenly the US is friends with old Soviet ally Vietnam because they oppose China. It's all a game of geopolitics.

---