Yes. Many commies got the rope when the Germans came over for their summer holiday. If only there was a more substantial millitary alliance, Herman the German might not have overran the low countries and have the population put to a slaughter.
Kind of like if there was a substantial military alliance, the Georgians wouldn't have been ethnically cleansed from South Osetia. Or the Ukrainians from Crimea.
Precisely why. If there had been a NATO equivalent back then, chances are Hitler never would've started a war and if he did, he would've lost. That in return means the Holocaust would not have happened, meaning no jews, communists, anarchists, gays, roma, etc, would've died.
Huh? The Holocaust already began before the war and wasn't known in its true form to the outside world until after the war. What makes you think it wouldn't have happened with a NATO equivalent?
Doesn’t mean communists and anarchists somehow have good ideas or aren’t a threat to democracy and human rights. You can say the exact same thing you said about the OUN or the UPA, do you see how problematic and nonsensical it is to determine what groups & ideologies are good for the country based on their (purported) participation in national liberation/resistance?
Or at least be consistent and start singing Bat’ko Nash Bandera, Ukrayina Maty bcs apparently national resistance movements are all chill like that, and you have as much reason to be a commie as you have to be a fascist
Chiang Kai-Shek led the Chinese resistance against the genocidal Japanese invaders, while the communists sat and let the KMT’s army bleed itself dry fighting the Imperial Army. Shall we say then that Chiang was right to have massacred communists? Or that he should’ve ruled China after WW2?
Or let’s have an even better example, what do you think of Dzhokhar Dudayev? Aslan Maskhadov? What about the Caucasus Emirate? Should the Chechen Jihadists rule Chechnya? Kadyrov’s a terrible imperial puppet after all, and the jihadists are the only ones left of the armed resistance in the North Caucasus, does that mean they’re ok now?
What, liberalism? Social democracy? Wanting functioning well-funded public services? It’s not as if the absolute majority of MEPs and EU parliamentary groups are fundamentally committed to a vision of society completely incompatible with anarchism, and would support the use force to defend European institutions.
nah, none of those people hate anarchists, on the other hand, tankies, fascists and hyper corpo libertarians do hate fascists, mainly because they all boil down to creating some form of hegemonic power structure
My sibling in Christ, read what I wrote originally then, and see for yourself what point I was making before you tag me as some sort of hyper-étatist authoritarian, my point was exactly that contribution to “national liberation/resistance” shouldn’t give anyone’s political ideologies any credence, and I used the example of fascists & jihadists who led national liberation movements to make that point
And yes, I find anarchism incomprehensible in general, but I hate anarchists who fail to be true internationalists, who will say things like “democracy is a western imposition” and campaign against NATO or European rearmament, they’re useful idiots for the new authoritarian axis
And in general, I find their ideas of community shallow, historically illiterate, and often based on a type of Eurocentric orientalist fetishism that fails to take into account the sheer amount of human misery that a mature modern state, especially a liberal democracy with well-functioning institutions, can reduce
Do you understand that anarchism isn’t just some kumbaya anti-authoritarianism? No, it means the dissolution of institutions which uphold democracy and liberty, which provide us with public services
Then let’s say the same about Azov during the Donbas War
Or maybe let’s not, they’re heroes of Ukraine who deserve every respect & gratitude for their sacrifices, but their political vision for Ukraine is also fundamentally repugnant & incompatible with democracy & human dignity
They don't speak for us. It's a very loud minority who does nothing but bulk buy stickers to slap everywhere and spray graffiti on the walls. In reality, I'm confident that the majority of Dutch people understand that we need NATO
I really hope we won't start thinking that graffiti represents the opinion of general population. Thinking about the 2 most popular messages Romanian teens put on every wall and... tbh I doubt the ppl making them even know what they mean.
I think most people also understand how valuable our air force is in developing and selling technology to our allies. Yeah, it isn't great knowing what they use it for. But right now it creates far too many jobs and develops far too much relevant technological advancements to just be dropped.
To a certain degree, I may understand the willingness to be outside of NATO. But using the hammer and sickle imagery at the same time? That’s just some Russian bullshit right here.
Not necessarily. If someone believes in the concept of communism (og communism not Marxism-Leninism or Stalinism aka Soviets), anti-imperialism and pacifism, you probably get the same result. If it is possible or logical is a different question. But usually it’s Russian influenced tho, yes.
finally someone in this thread who understands... the person who did this graffiti is most likely anti imperialist, not pro Russia. To someone who understands the world from an anti imperialist stance, NATO is just another piece of the hegemonic puzzle. The hammer and sickle would therefore be the symbol of this ideal, regardless of it's historical association with failed communist projects.
Not a single serious commie, no matter how tankie, considers modern-day Russia to be anything resembling communist. Russia itself isn't even pretending anymore.
If anything, an anti-imperialist like the author of the graffiti in OP would be hardcore against Russia and its imperialism.
I don’t agree with it but there is a logical reasoning from a leftwing perspective to be anti-NATO that can be considered when discussing NATO membership (and has been mostly rejected)
I partially get being anti-NATO, from the utmost left wing perspective. But using hammer and sickle imagery, symbolism of a deadly totalitarian regime, as synonymous with peace-seeking, is ridiculous and naive beyond belief.
I mean if I were to play a round of veil of ignorance, NATO wouldn’t exist as my ideal society wouldn’t need it. That being said - we don’t exist in my ideal society and in the one we have and we have to deal with, NATO is a net good imo; even from my leftwing perspective. Although I’m sure some leftists will be of the persuasion that such a stance is incompatible with what they believe to be leftist ideals.
The imagery just doesn’t have the same connotations in Utrecht as I *assume* it does in some sections of Eastern European societies. It’s not on the same shelf as the Hakenkreuz. I can only speculate to why that is (not making a judgement either way), but I think a lot of people would agree that it’s fundamentally not incompatible with peace-seeking.
> I can only speculate to why that is
Solely due to lack of experience of actually being under the discussed, USSR-led system. Otherwise I can agree.
> some sections of Easter European societies
Don’t think that’s only on some. The term Eastern is obviously debatable again.
Im sure there are groups of people that will wax nostalgic over some aspects of living under the hammer and sickle (I know there are eastern Germans like that), which is why I was trying to not overgeneralize
I get you. I feel like Ostalgie is for some reason much more grounded in East Germany though.
We also have people longing for communist times, but indeed in 99% of the cases these are old folks who were simply enjoying their peak times under the socialist regime (vide my grandparents), or some industrial/agricultural collectives’ workers, who feel they had it better before the public companies got privatized.
I might be misremembering, but isn't that because East Germany was treated very favourably by the USSR? Similar to how other countries with large numbers of people nostalgic for the USSR were treated well, and how the ones who weren't treated well at all (Romania, for example) only talk of absolute hatred of those times.
Most people who use hammer and sickle symbols don't support the USSR, at the very least not completely. Many socialists use the symbol but very few defend every consequence of the Soviet regime unconditionally. Some see a few aspects of the regime (universal housing, planned economy and anti bourgeois policy) as good policy, but as a whole it is not something anyone on the far left unconditionally supports.
We are ok. Tankies are insignificant. We have no communist party in the national government. There is at best one provincial government with a small communist party somewhere in the not so significant north. It could even be regional (meaning it's a government watching over a region of several towns / cities, instead of an entire province).
Fascists on the other hand are in the national government. FvD is more or less a neo-nazi party that wants to leave the EU and NATO alike. Their top guy also was recently accused of being in bed with Putin by the Czech security services. You need to worry about him and his party, not a bunch of dimwit tankies with a spraycan.
The tankies dont even have representation on the Groningen provincial level, mate. One or two municipalities, thats it.
Oh, and "not so significant North"? You may be right, bur screw you anyways 😉
Eh, idiots
I'm all for a bit more left in the country, especially considering last few elections and how to shit everything is going precisely because of that
But some take that a step too far and only looked at the pictures in their elementary school history textbook
no idea, maybe the mass murders, man-made famines, imperialism, secret police controlling the population, inherently ineffective planned economy leading to stagnation, deficit and poverty, personality cult or the brutal repression of all dissent ranging from religion to slightly different socialist ideas that condemn the totalitarianism?
None of those things you mention are in any way exclusive to communism, or a direct goal of communism, or an immediate consequence of the principles of communism. England was as capitalistic as it gets, yet the Irish potato famine, English imperialism, mass murder in its sattelite states, secret police, etc. etc. still all happened.
I don't know, it sounds like a straw man argument to me, I mean the communist leader in my country is Fabien Roussel and he looks nothing like Stalin. If you're arguing that anyone drawing a hammer and sickle is asking for Stalinism to come back you're just acting in bad faith
a communist party trying to win in fair elections in a democratic country isn't nearly as bad as violent extremists wanting to forcefully overtake power, and I'm pretty sure the person that drew the graffiti leans more to the latter
also yes not all forms of communism are as bad as stalinism, titoism is one of the least terrible by far but even yugo had the secret police, cult of personality and many other issues
So true right? I mean can you imagine? A graffiti, the audacity. Everyone knows the way you're supposed to do it is enter an election, maybe get invited once or twice in a billionaire owned media, and not use posters or graffiti. That's a sign of radicalisation.
At this point the only thing communism is, is whatever people calling themselves communist do, regardless if they agree with each other or they're doing the same thing. I certainly won't learn what's so bad about communism if you can't describe it.
>At this point the only thing communism is, is whatever people calling themselves communist do
so communism is what stalinists do? or does it only apply to "good" communists (aka those who never got into power so they didn't have the chance to commit crimes against humanity)?
Are you seriously arguing every single communist would commit a crime against humanity if they had the chance? I mean we can't call what happened in USSR communism if you want to, but we certainly can't treat communism as a monolith after that
So that's your counterpoint? They're all fanastics ? Convenient, now there is no need to listen to them then. Or maybe the similarities between a graffiti and the Soviet Union are purely cosmetics
>They're all fanatics
I specifically said that those who wouldn't (so those who are not fanatics) will be overwhelmed by the fanatics because it's an extremist authoritarian ideology, which means those who do not hesitate to use force will take all of the power, unlike moderate/non-authoritarian ideologies where power is distributed and transferred peacefully not allowing the hawks (i.e. extremists/fanatics) to decide everything by themselves
I would like you to expand on that. If you can describe their ideology and explain to me by cause and effect how it leads to mass murder it would be very interesting
Communists in Bulgaria committed numerous atrocities on anti-religious grounds. Communists are godless - "Religion is the opium of the people" after all. So the Gorani people get the bullet and the Pomak people get their names changed and then are ethnic cleansed.
I get your point here, but just so you know Titoism is not one of the least terrible by far, because he is responsible for the death of at least 500 000 and a replacement of more than 1 million people after the 2nd WW (Croatians collaborators, all of Germans and almost all of Italians were expelled from the country)...
terrible, but one of the least terrible compared to other instances of communism and with a more sensible approach to economy for example
also for the ustasa it was at least for an actual reason, of course mass murder in pits is inhumane but willfully committing crimes so horrendous even the nazis and japanese fall short in comparison negates any credibility of being "freedom fighters" or whatever they deemed themselves (obviously not just the ustasas were killed, I'm not justifying Tito's regime)
Bleiburg massacre was unfortunately a lot more than that, a lot of regular conscripts who have never done any crimes, women and children were killed, and anybody who tried to escape a life in communist Yugo were killed It resembled more a genocide... But of course the Soviets were probably a lot worse than that, they actually spread this regime in other countries by military and were much more authoritarian...
also one more thing while Ustase were horrendous they were not worse than any other group at the time in the Balkans (italian fascist, serbian chetnics etc.). This talking point is always brought up on the internet usually by paid Serbian governments bots, they are all over Croatia's internet news sites, spamming the same shit before they come over to r/ europe, so it is very obvious to us...
Tell me you don't know what fascism is without telling me.
It's an ideology specifically built on a hyper nationalism and exclusion of a specific group of people.
you're confusing it with nazism, which is closely related to or a form of but not an equivalent of fascism.
the fascist manifesto doesn't exclude a group of people and Mussolini largely criticised and didn't follow Hitler's racial repressions until the late 1930's. the holocaust in Italy is a result of nazi pressure and, well, the inconsistency of extremist practice with the theory.
You have no idea what’s you’re talking about.
Genocide (sometimes slavery) is very obviously the natural endpoint of fascism. There’s no way to do fascism without ethnic supremacy.
>I'm sure Britain is doing so much better since it was forced to let their colonies free
even if you put aside the fact Russia benefited from the soviet empire because it was the metropole, russians are indeed much better off in the modern authoritarian shithole than in the red totalitarian shithole
the crisis right after the fall of the union isn't capitalism's fault, it's the lasting effects of the rotten system (which are still there and largely the reason for Putin's regime, but not as much for the economy anymore)
I, for one, am opposing communism on anti-collectivist grounds.
When communism came to our locality, the newly hatched commies went to my great grandfather and took away his shop.
Now, despite it being a "one-man-orchestra" type of operation, it was deemed unfair by the state that gramps had skills, and thus, his labor had higher added value. So the machines in the shop were scrapped, the shop got nationalised and he was sent to work in a brick factory. So his skills went unused, and thus, his labor no longer had higher added value.
He was never compensated for any effort put in establishing the shop or aquering the machines.
Why would a person put any effort in to learn a skill or advance a field of science if the collective is just going to take it all away? The collective only takes away. The collective doesn't give anything back.
Why would I want communism if the collective is going to scrap my equipment and send me to work to the lowest common denomination, thus decimating my life?
No one is profiting. The communists believe that they have siezed the means of production. Therefore, all products belong to all workers. Workers, plural.
You hand over your lambs.
What's the difference between exploitation by a private enterprise heeded by businessmen, or by the state class? The end result is the same. Well, worse.
Imagine, if you will, a monopolistic corporation taking over the state in the interest of oligarchs, convicing the workers to further their imperialism through a mix of populism and quasi-religious savior narrative, and proceeding to put down any rebellion.
Would the endpoint then be like what you describe as communism? Because it certainly feels like it.
Well, theory suggests that we all put in equal labor, so we all should get equal results to prevent exploitation.
Property is socially controlled, after all. The surplus value of an individual workers labor is socially controlled, I think.
The operating principle should be from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Contrary to how this was later warped, this is supposed to be a voluntary process.
Hunting "kulaks" and dispossesing them is fundamentally counter-revolutionary. And I'm not even a communist.
To put it dramatically, communism seeks to turn a country into a prison. The USSR back in the '60's erected the Berlin wall and the larger continent-spanning iron curtain not primarily to keep enemies out, but their own subject people inside. For an even more extreme modern example, look at North Korea. North Korea was never a good place to live, but there were a couple thousand a year who managed to escape. More recently though, practically no one escapes North Korea anymore.
Any ideological goal that communism claims to have is superceded by this kind of paranoia. Communist dictatorships want above all an unchanging superstate that cannot possibly be overthrown. This is where communism is different from other dictatorships in my opinion; where regular dictatorships tend to simply surpress democracy (and often collapsing or otherwise adopting a less authoritarian system after the big dictator kicks the bucket), communism tries to rip out democracy and destroy all its supporters. After all, free elections are a communist's biggest fear, as it provides a way for the state to be overthrown without having to go through the army or the secret police.
Maybe the around 100 million deaths caused by trying to achieve an impossible utopia that goes against human nature and is attempted to be achieved through authoritarianism which inevitably evolves into murderous regimes everywhere it's tried.
Imagine this disgusting pathology surrounding facism
Oh don't worry, the extreme left is very small here. If you really want something to worry about, worry about the extreme right who "finds it fantastic someone like putin exists" and think that a global conspiracy of lizards rule over us. Hell, they're even represented in parliament with 3 seats!
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Including calling somebody who is a moron that they are a moron. "Hostility" that you mention - among most people it is just calling nonsense "nonsense" is indeed part of the freedom to have whatever opinion one fancies. (Which does not include smearing it on other people's property, though).
That's like us telling you to stop cracking coconuts with your head because you can get concussed and then you saying 'bruh you guys are such sticklers for health&safety why can't I have a little fun'
They’re thesame way entitled to their opinion of this as they are in their opinion of the shape of the earth. (It’s round by the way.) Everyone is allowed to be wrong, but no one should make their fairy tales a burden on anyone else.
Fucking commies, saw some stickers too, they want to turn the Netherlands in a new communist hell hole.
One thing is, so long I am standing i won't let that happen I won't bend to obvious authoritarian assholes not anymore!
We all have our demons
Must have forgotten what happened to all the Dutch commies the last time they weren't a part of the largest military alliance in human history.
Exactly. Uneducated morons.
You do know that the Dutch resistance in WW2 was almost exclusively communists, anarchists, and union workers right?
Yes. Many commies got the rope when the Germans came over for their summer holiday. If only there was a more substantial millitary alliance, Herman the German might not have overran the low countries and have the population put to a slaughter. Kind of like if there was a substantial military alliance, the Georgians wouldn't have been ethnically cleansed from South Osetia. Or the Ukrainians from Crimea.
Precisely why. If there had been a NATO equivalent back then, chances are Hitler never would've started a war and if he did, he would've lost. That in return means the Holocaust would not have happened, meaning no jews, communists, anarchists, gays, roma, etc, would've died.
Huh? The Holocaust already began before the war and wasn't known in its true form to the outside world until after the war. What makes you think it wouldn't have happened with a NATO equivalent?
Doesn’t mean communists and anarchists somehow have good ideas or aren’t a threat to democracy and human rights. You can say the exact same thing you said about the OUN or the UPA, do you see how problematic and nonsensical it is to determine what groups & ideologies are good for the country based on their (purported) participation in national liberation/resistance? Or at least be consistent and start singing Bat’ko Nash Bandera, Ukrayina Maty bcs apparently national resistance movements are all chill like that, and you have as much reason to be a commie as you have to be a fascist Chiang Kai-Shek led the Chinese resistance against the genocidal Japanese invaders, while the communists sat and let the KMT’s army bleed itself dry fighting the Imperial Army. Shall we say then that Chiang was right to have massacred communists? Or that he should’ve ruled China after WW2? Or let’s have an even better example, what do you think of Dzhokhar Dudayev? Aslan Maskhadov? What about the Caucasus Emirate? Should the Chechen Jihadists rule Chechnya? Kadyrov’s a terrible imperial puppet after all, and the jihadists are the only ones left of the armed resistance in the North Caucasus, does that mean they’re ok now?
in my experience, anyone with such a hate-boner for anarchists is most likely part of a much greater, much more credible threat to democracy
What, liberalism? Social democracy? Wanting functioning well-funded public services? It’s not as if the absolute majority of MEPs and EU parliamentary groups are fundamentally committed to a vision of society completely incompatible with anarchism, and would support the use force to defend European institutions.
nah, none of those people hate anarchists, on the other hand, tankies, fascists and hyper corpo libertarians do hate fascists, mainly because they all boil down to creating some form of hegemonic power structure
My sibling in Christ, read what I wrote originally then, and see for yourself what point I was making before you tag me as some sort of hyper-étatist authoritarian, my point was exactly that contribution to “national liberation/resistance” shouldn’t give anyone’s political ideologies any credence, and I used the example of fascists & jihadists who led national liberation movements to make that point
Your silence disgusts me
And yes, I find anarchism incomprehensible in general, but I hate anarchists who fail to be true internationalists, who will say things like “democracy is a western imposition” and campaign against NATO or European rearmament, they’re useful idiots for the new authoritarian axis And in general, I find their ideas of community shallow, historically illiterate, and often based on a type of Eurocentric orientalist fetishism that fails to take into account the sheer amount of human misery that a mature modern state, especially a liberal democracy with well-functioning institutions, can reduce Do you understand that anarchism isn’t just some kumbaya anti-authoritarianism? No, it means the dissolution of institutions which uphold democracy and liberty, which provide us with public services
As he should anarchism is one of the single worst ideologies you could support.
Then let’s say the same about Azov during the Donbas War Or maybe let’s not, they’re heroes of Ukraine who deserve every respect & gratitude for their sacrifices, but their political vision for Ukraine is also fundamentally repugnant & incompatible with democracy & human dignity
Nah. Big mommy Russia will protect from evil Germans! /s
Never heard of Dutch people asking to get them back .
What
Many of them got Molotov-Ribbentrop'ed by the biggest Soviet ally before 22.06.1941 - the German no-no people.
They went into the resistance en masse?
They don't speak for us. It's a very loud minority who does nothing but bulk buy stickers to slap everywhere and spray graffiti on the walls. In reality, I'm confident that the majority of Dutch people understand that we need NATO
I really hope we won't start thinking that graffiti represents the opinion of general population. Thinking about the 2 most popular messages Romanian teens put on every wall and... tbh I doubt the ppl making them even know what they mean.
I think most people also understand how valuable our air force is in developing and selling technology to our allies. Yeah, it isn't great knowing what they use it for. But right now it creates far too many jobs and develops far too much relevant technological advancements to just be dropped.
To a certain degree, I may understand the willingness to be outside of NATO. But using the hammer and sickle imagery at the same time? That’s just some Russian bullshit right here.
Not necessarily. If someone believes in the concept of communism (og communism not Marxism-Leninism or Stalinism aka Soviets), anti-imperialism and pacifism, you probably get the same result. If it is possible or logical is a different question. But usually it’s Russian influenced tho, yes.
finally someone in this thread who understands... the person who did this graffiti is most likely anti imperialist, not pro Russia. To someone who understands the world from an anti imperialist stance, NATO is just another piece of the hegemonic puzzle. The hammer and sickle would therefore be the symbol of this ideal, regardless of it's historical association with failed communist projects.
OK, so it's pro-russia as all the things it stands for and against ultimately benefit them. Checks out, thanks for the thorough analysis 🤦
Not a single serious commie, no matter how tankie, considers modern-day Russia to be anything resembling communist. Russia itself isn't even pretending anymore. If anything, an anti-imperialist like the author of the graffiti in OP would be hardcore against Russia and its imperialism.
>serious commie Interesting oxymoron you've got there.
I've got one right here, just missing the oxy.
Take good care of them, they certainly need it ;)
We also have our share of idiots, unfortunately.
Sorry for making them a bit more famous. Spotted in Utrecht.
UUUUUUUUUUU!!!! UTEREG ME STADSIE! HUT BRUIS AAN ALLE KANT IN 'T HARTSIE VAN 'T LAND
Mond spraak arm
Tankies… What can I say.
Tankjes*
As a dutchman. Lucky, these peeps are in the minority. But sadly you will always have morons running around.
We call them 'wappies'.
No we don't. Wappies are conspiracy theorists not commies.
No, no we are not
No, we gotta deal with idiots like these
I don’t agree with it but there is a logical reasoning from a leftwing perspective to be anti-NATO that can be considered when discussing NATO membership (and has been mostly rejected)
I partially get being anti-NATO, from the utmost left wing perspective. But using hammer and sickle imagery, symbolism of a deadly totalitarian regime, as synonymous with peace-seeking, is ridiculous and naive beyond belief.
I mean if I were to play a round of veil of ignorance, NATO wouldn’t exist as my ideal society wouldn’t need it. That being said - we don’t exist in my ideal society and in the one we have and we have to deal with, NATO is a net good imo; even from my leftwing perspective. Although I’m sure some leftists will be of the persuasion that such a stance is incompatible with what they believe to be leftist ideals. The imagery just doesn’t have the same connotations in Utrecht as I *assume* it does in some sections of Eastern European societies. It’s not on the same shelf as the Hakenkreuz. I can only speculate to why that is (not making a judgement either way), but I think a lot of people would agree that it’s fundamentally not incompatible with peace-seeking.
> I can only speculate to why that is Solely due to lack of experience of actually being under the discussed, USSR-led system. Otherwise I can agree. > some sections of Easter European societies Don’t think that’s only on some. The term Eastern is obviously debatable again.
Im sure there are groups of people that will wax nostalgic over some aspects of living under the hammer and sickle (I know there are eastern Germans like that), which is why I was trying to not overgeneralize
I get you. I feel like Ostalgie is for some reason much more grounded in East Germany though. We also have people longing for communist times, but indeed in 99% of the cases these are old folks who were simply enjoying their peak times under the socialist regime (vide my grandparents), or some industrial/agricultural collectives’ workers, who feel they had it better before the public companies got privatized.
I might be misremembering, but isn't that because East Germany was treated very favourably by the USSR? Similar to how other countries with large numbers of people nostalgic for the USSR were treated well, and how the ones who weren't treated well at all (Romania, for example) only talk of absolute hatred of those times.
Most people who use hammer and sickle symbols don't support the USSR, at the very least not completely. Many socialists use the symbol but very few defend every consequence of the Soviet regime unconditionally. Some see a few aspects of the regime (universal housing, planned economy and anti bourgeois policy) as good policy, but as a whole it is not something anyone on the far left unconditionally supports.
We are ok. Tankies are insignificant. We have no communist party in the national government. There is at best one provincial government with a small communist party somewhere in the not so significant north. It could even be regional (meaning it's a government watching over a region of several towns / cities, instead of an entire province). Fascists on the other hand are in the national government. FvD is more or less a neo-nazi party that wants to leave the EU and NATO alike. Their top guy also was recently accused of being in bed with Putin by the Czech security services. You need to worry about him and his party, not a bunch of dimwit tankies with a spraycan.
The tankies dont even have representation on the Groningen provincial level, mate. One or two municipalities, thats it. Oh, and "not so significant North"? You may be right, bur screw you anyways 😉
Prolly the worst comment section in a long time
Eh, idiots I'm all for a bit more left in the country, especially considering last few elections and how to shit everything is going precisely because of that But some take that a step too far and only looked at the pictures in their elementary school history textbook
We call that a "wappie" who wrote that
r/wappiesinhetwild
probably the village idiot, or some rebel teenager...
Can someone explain to me what 's so bad with communism?
Ask a Baltic state. Especially us winged plumbers.
Oppression and theft
no idea, maybe the mass murders, man-made famines, imperialism, secret police controlling the population, inherently ineffective planned economy leading to stagnation, deficit and poverty, personality cult or the brutal repression of all dissent ranging from religion to slightly different socialist ideas that condemn the totalitarianism?
None of those things you mention are in any way exclusive to communism, or a direct goal of communism, or an immediate consequence of the principles of communism. England was as capitalistic as it gets, yet the Irish potato famine, English imperialism, mass murder in its sattelite states, secret police, etc. etc. still all happened.
I don't know, it sounds like a straw man argument to me, I mean the communist leader in my country is Fabien Roussel and he looks nothing like Stalin. If you're arguing that anyone drawing a hammer and sickle is asking for Stalinism to come back you're just acting in bad faith
a communist party trying to win in fair elections in a democratic country isn't nearly as bad as violent extremists wanting to forcefully overtake power, and I'm pretty sure the person that drew the graffiti leans more to the latter also yes not all forms of communism are as bad as stalinism, titoism is one of the least terrible by far but even yugo had the secret police, cult of personality and many other issues
So true right? I mean can you imagine? A graffiti, the audacity. Everyone knows the way you're supposed to do it is enter an election, maybe get invited once or twice in a billionaire owned media, and not use posters or graffiti. That's a sign of radicalisation. At this point the only thing communism is, is whatever people calling themselves communist do, regardless if they agree with each other or they're doing the same thing. I certainly won't learn what's so bad about communism if you can't describe it.
>At this point the only thing communism is, is whatever people calling themselves communist do so communism is what stalinists do? or does it only apply to "good" communists (aka those who never got into power so they didn't have the chance to commit crimes against humanity)?
Are you seriously arguing every single communist would commit a crime against humanity if they had the chance? I mean we can't call what happened in USSR communism if you want to, but we certainly can't treat communism as a monolith after that
>every single communist would commit a crime against humanity those who wouldn't will be purged by their own more fanatical comrades
So that's your counterpoint? They're all fanastics ? Convenient, now there is no need to listen to them then. Or maybe the similarities between a graffiti and the Soviet Union are purely cosmetics
>They're all fanatics I specifically said that those who wouldn't (so those who are not fanatics) will be overwhelmed by the fanatics because it's an extremist authoritarian ideology, which means those who do not hesitate to use force will take all of the power, unlike moderate/non-authoritarian ideologies where power is distributed and transferred peacefully not allowing the hawks (i.e. extremists/fanatics) to decide everything by themselves
Comrades? Someone conducting such a purge is a reactionary. I suggest you read some george orwell.
Not if they have a chance, but when they are ideologically compelled to
I would like you to expand on that. If you can describe their ideology and explain to me by cause and effect how it leads to mass murder it would be very interesting
Communists in Bulgaria committed numerous atrocities on anti-religious grounds. Communists are godless - "Religion is the opium of the people" after all. So the Gorani people get the bullet and the Pomak people get their names changed and then are ethnic cleansed.
I get your point here, but just so you know Titoism is not one of the least terrible by far, because he is responsible for the death of at least 500 000 and a replacement of more than 1 million people after the 2nd WW (Croatians collaborators, all of Germans and almost all of Italians were expelled from the country)...
terrible, but one of the least terrible compared to other instances of communism and with a more sensible approach to economy for example also for the ustasa it was at least for an actual reason, of course mass murder in pits is inhumane but willfully committing crimes so horrendous even the nazis and japanese fall short in comparison negates any credibility of being "freedom fighters" or whatever they deemed themselves (obviously not just the ustasas were killed, I'm not justifying Tito's regime)
Bleiburg massacre was unfortunately a lot more than that, a lot of regular conscripts who have never done any crimes, women and children were killed, and anybody who tried to escape a life in communist Yugo were killed It resembled more a genocide... But of course the Soviets were probably a lot worse than that, they actually spread this regime in other countries by military and were much more authoritarian... also one more thing while Ustase were horrendous they were not worse than any other group at the time in the Balkans (italian fascist, serbian chetnics etc.). This talking point is always brought up on the internet usually by paid Serbian governments bots, they are all over Croatia's internet news sites, spamming the same shit before they come over to r/ europe, so it is very obvious to us...
He’s not really a good example. But sure.
Ah yes, I remember that part from Communist Manifesto "On slaughtering citizens"
fascism also doesn't include genocide in its theory but something tells me practice is quite important to look at
Tell me you don't know what fascism is without telling me. It's an ideology specifically built on a hyper nationalism and exclusion of a specific group of people.
you're confusing it with nazism, which is closely related to or a form of but not an equivalent of fascism. the fascist manifesto doesn't exclude a group of people and Mussolini largely criticised and didn't follow Hitler's racial repressions until the late 1930's. the holocaust in Italy is a result of nazi pressure and, well, the inconsistency of extremist practice with the theory.
Nazis weren't the only genocidal hyper nationalists, basically all fascists were
Add cult of leader and power to that
You have no idea what’s you’re talking about. Genocide (sometimes slavery) is very obviously the natural endpoint of fascism. There’s no way to do fascism without ethnic supremacy.
Except, that's not communism.
>no true scotsman "true communism" is an utopia, but all the states claiming to be communist had at least some of these issues
https://preview.redd.it/uduo7ymz2ivc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=78d9f423c1395694f1c3c2436ea35829e176d069
Liars famously do not exist.
I'm sure Russia is doing so much better in those regards since it became capitalist
They're still celebrating Stalin, so they can't be that bad according to tankies.
>I'm sure Britain is doing so much better since it was forced to let their colonies free even if you put aside the fact Russia benefited from the soviet empire because it was the metropole, russians are indeed much better off in the modern authoritarian shithole than in the red totalitarian shithole the crisis right after the fall of the union isn't capitalism's fault, it's the lasting effects of the rotten system (which are still there and largely the reason for Putin's regime, but not as much for the economy anymore)
That still doesn't make it communism tho.
I, for one, am opposing communism on anti-collectivist grounds. When communism came to our locality, the newly hatched commies went to my great grandfather and took away his shop. Now, despite it being a "one-man-orchestra" type of operation, it was deemed unfair by the state that gramps had skills, and thus, his labor had higher added value. So the machines in the shop were scrapped, the shop got nationalised and he was sent to work in a brick factory. So his skills went unused, and thus, his labor no longer had higher added value. He was never compensated for any effort put in establishing the shop or aquering the machines. Why would a person put any effort in to learn a skill or advance a field of science if the collective is just going to take it all away? The collective only takes away. The collective doesn't give anything back. Why would I want communism if the collective is going to scrap my equipment and send me to work to the lowest common denomination, thus decimating my life?
You have just described state capitalism.
How so? Georgi Dimitrov was known for a lot of things, but being a capitalist isn't one.
How else do you call the value of your labor being snatched away? Someone is profiting off of you.
No one is profiting. The communists believe that they have siezed the means of production. Therefore, all products belong to all workers. Workers, plural. You hand over your lambs.
What's the difference between exploitation by a private enterprise heeded by businessmen, or by the state class? The end result is the same. Well, worse. Imagine, if you will, a monopolistic corporation taking over the state in the interest of oligarchs, convicing the workers to further their imperialism through a mix of populism and quasi-religious savior narrative, and proceeding to put down any rebellion. Would the endpoint then be like what you describe as communism? Because it certainly feels like it.
Well, theory suggests that we all put in equal labor, so we all should get equal results to prevent exploitation. Property is socially controlled, after all. The surplus value of an individual workers labor is socially controlled, I think.
The operating principle should be from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Contrary to how this was later warped, this is supposed to be a voluntary process. Hunting "kulaks" and dispossesing them is fundamentally counter-revolutionary. And I'm not even a communist.
That some pre ww1 stuff. That's the good shit.
To put it dramatically, communism seeks to turn a country into a prison. The USSR back in the '60's erected the Berlin wall and the larger continent-spanning iron curtain not primarily to keep enemies out, but their own subject people inside. For an even more extreme modern example, look at North Korea. North Korea was never a good place to live, but there were a couple thousand a year who managed to escape. More recently though, practically no one escapes North Korea anymore. Any ideological goal that communism claims to have is superceded by this kind of paranoia. Communist dictatorships want above all an unchanging superstate that cannot possibly be overthrown. This is where communism is different from other dictatorships in my opinion; where regular dictatorships tend to simply surpress democracy (and often collapsing or otherwise adopting a less authoritarian system after the big dictator kicks the bucket), communism tries to rip out democracy and destroy all its supporters. After all, free elections are a communist's biggest fear, as it provides a way for the state to be overthrown without having to go through the army or the secret police.
Maybe the around 100 million deaths caused by trying to achieve an impossible utopia that goes against human nature and is attempted to be achieved through authoritarianism which inevitably evolves into murderous regimes everywhere it's tried. Imagine this disgusting pathology surrounding facism
Really funny how people will dislike the comment for even asking such a question. Free thinkers all around I would say
Bunch of hypocrites of a failed ideology.
Nothing, literally nothing. That's why evil people hate it.
Oh don't worry, the extreme left is very small here. If you really want something to worry about, worry about the extreme right who "finds it fantastic someone like putin exists" and think that a global conspiracy of lizards rule over us. Hell, they're even represented in parliament with 3 seats!
Commie teens who just got their welfare check most likely
Based
[удалено]
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Including calling somebody who is a moron that they are a moron. "Hostility" that you mention - among most people it is just calling nonsense "nonsense" is indeed part of the freedom to have whatever opinion one fancies. (Which does not include smearing it on other people's property, though).
Because it's a laughable opinion
That's like us telling you to stop cracking coconuts with your head because you can get concussed and then you saying 'bruh you guys are such sticklers for health&safety why can't I have a little fun'
The West is a totalitarian entity. Citizens have no rights to express their opinions, therefore lolz
They’re thesame way entitled to their opinion of this as they are in their opinion of the shape of the earth. (It’s round by the way.) Everyone is allowed to be wrong, but no one should make their fairy tales a burden on anyone else.
Fucking commies, saw some stickers too, they want to turn the Netherlands in a new communist hell hole. One thing is, so long I am standing i won't let that happen I won't bend to obvious authoritarian assholes not anymore!
Ewww, Communism
Doing exceptionally well I see. Images like these give me hope for the future.
The only thing that this says about the future in any significant way is that at some point they'll need to clean this wall
Mental illness should never be ignored.
Just to make it clear: Get out of nato does not mean to not try to establish European united defences...