Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Isocratia t1_j2z55zv wrote

The proper response to swastikas is the three arrows.

///

233

JubeltheBear t1_j2zd1x4 wrote

3 arrows? What’s that mean?

84

Isocratia t1_j2zdng9 wrote

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

166

The_Barnanator t1_j30aera wrote

Gotta say, I've always found it weird to include ML as the third arrow

−28

Bovolt t1_j30nlkm wrote

Try a history book.

43

officialbigrob t1_j30qu8e wrote

You mean the history books where all of the most committed anticommunists are a bunch of racist fascist nationalists?

−33

malphonso t1_j30tg8h wrote

Yes, but communists are welcome in Iron Front groups, just not authoritarian communists.

30

Perpetual_Doubt t1_j336qlm wrote

You mean socialists so

Edit: point out a non-authoritarian Communist. I'll wait

0

Bovolt t1_j30rueb wrote

The practical applications of Marxism-Leninism, and the political ideologies branched from it, have directly resulted in millions of deaths in the last eighty five years.

It's okay to be against two major, failed, murderous political ideologies at the same time.

Really. You don't have to pick a side.

24

Kenny__Loggins t1_j3130zt wrote

It's always weird when people get out the calculator for ML deaths but then when capitalism has people dying from lack insulin and wars for oil, that's just the way things be

42

HammerTimeHTFU t1_j313nma wrote

I think the idea is that many people oppose capitalism and also oppose authoritarianism in any/all forms.

26

Krunch007 t1_j31ej45 wrote

That's a bit of an oversimplification of capitalism's failings. And there's nothing wrong with keeping in mind how to NOT design the next socialist system.

I'm not saying it's a good faith critique of ML, it's not used as such. I agree with you that capitalism killed a lot of people too. However, I see no point in defending ML at all. Whatever good emerged from it could have emerged without all those deaths if Lenin, Mao and Stalin weren't such massive cunts. If it was democratic. Really, there's no point in mounting a defense of that failure.

−8

CatDog1337 t1_j31h4n4 wrote

Saying that capitalism also killed people does not defend communism.

Also pointing out that people let other people die/suffer because they want to make more money sounds like a pretty good description of capitalisms failings.

11

Kenny__Loggins t1_j328qmr wrote

If the argument is "communism bad because people died" and the alternative is a system that also leads to people dying, then it is a defense against the notion that the current system must be maintained.

Now, if there are other systems that are even better, great. But usually when people trot out the "communism killed 27 kajillion people" argument, they are using it to argue that capitalism is better.

4

Krunch007 t1_j32hufo wrote

You agree context matters I assume? In the context of addressing deaths caused by ML, saying capitalism causes deaths too sounds very much like an intended defense.

That being said, every political system ever has caused deaths, whether intentionately or not, so it's a moot point anyway. I hate arguing it. It's much more relevant to just say capitalism's falling is actually the intentional fueling of inequality through false meritocratic rhetoric, which results in death and suffering due to not affording vital necessities, class tensions which result in a more divided society, stifling human progress by focusing on what's more profitable instead of what's better for people as a whole, so on and so forth.

So no, I do think it's an oversimplification that doesn't even touch the problem, since it's a trait it shares with all past political systems, and perhaps with future ones as well.

2

Kenny__Loggins t1_j329hva wrote

Sure. I think the main issue here is that there will probably never be an accurate accounting of the effects of any system, especially communist ones when empirical powers are extremely capitalist. For example, historians don't even agree that the holodomor was intentional, but most people assume it was and count that as a black mark against the USSR.

And that's without even mentioning that communism has never been given a proper chance because of the fact that capitalists have a vested interest in knocking it's legs out from underneath it at every step. So even the most accurate analysis of a communist country would not allow us to really compare the results of a capitalist world with a communist one.

3

Krunch007 t1_j31fcrv wrote

I think people who are on the left reflexively feel like they have to defend ML just because it's exactly what some will try to clobber them over the head with in arguments. "But so many deaths caused by soshalism!!!1!"

Yeah, but like, you know... It's not the system communists today(aside from tankies) and socialists want to implement. A democratic socialist system should look nothing like any of the ML states, and nobody should feel compelled to defend those failures at all. It's not socialist policies that killed millions, it's cunt dictators and their bootlickers who never should have been running countries in the first place.

But people don't really make that distinction easy.

7

NoUseForAName2222 t1_j312p6t wrote

Oh c'mon.

You're not going to see that in a US history book.

You gotta wait until you're mid 20s when you pick up books from Howard Zinn.

Damn, this really got down voted? Lol. Galatians 4:16, man.

−7

WillyBlunts t1_j2zlrca wrote

Given the history of Adidas and Puma this must be relevant to Adidas 3 stripes?

−41