Which of those countries had a military capable of fighting back the Nazis but chose not to? Only one, let’s see if ml can find it.
The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.
When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.
Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:
If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.
Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.
This is still putting some equivalency on a non-aggression treaty and actual military alliance.
It’s possible to hate a country and also be forced to capitulate to it (or die trying to resist, if you don’t have a family that you care about).
No one show this to this the dnc is perfect and can in no way improve, why yes I think anyone to the left of Hillary is a tankie user
And cryptagion “every one of the 27 million soviets killed by the Nazis deserved it,” including women, children, civilians,etc, is famously someone who was too genocidal against Marxists that even Lemmy.world found it too much:
Very strange things happening, even saw goat call db0 a “tankie.”
Jesus christ. I’m not really surprised but hadn’t seen that comment.
Yea, there are 3 or 4 users on dbzer0 I recognize that go well-beyond the typical anarchist-style anti-communism and go full-on fash when it comes to Marxists.
Jesus Christ
oh hey that’s the jerk that called me a Trump supporter for refusing to back Newsom after all the anti-trans shit he agreed with Charlie Kirk about on his podcast.
Once again, Sweden’s good PR helps them dodge a shot.
it seems that hasbara is worth it; isreali or not.
“Ok so now it’s legitimate to invade these countries!”
Average tankie.
Average lib.
This is a nice completion to the post however I am not sur it is related to my comment.
Your comment is a person that only lives in your head. It’s a strawman
Except we came exactly to that point with Cowbee. Who, I am thankful, was open to dialog, unlike you with your short unrelated or straight made up comments.
Why is it that anti-communists never seem to be capable of genuinely engaging with the stances of Marxists, and have to invent strawmen to reconcile their refusal to understand the Marxist point of view?
You are reading too much into a stupid comment to a stupid post.
In what way is this “too much” reading? If you weren’t trying to make a point, what were you trying to do?
They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words.
My top comment was frivolous indeed, because I considered OP quite frivolous too. Maybe that was my mistake? However, I do not think getting downvoted all the way on all my comments on this thread is very justified.
I do not consider myself a lib, and the meme do not reflect my opinion, however I still felt targeted by the post. Why? Another mistake from my part? Maybe the first response should not always be antoginization of the not .ml user.
Pretty spot-on.
It is too much reading in assuming I am anti-communist. I was replying to the post in the style of the post.
But you were just complaining about communists, no?
Not in general no. I was more refering to how I have seen .ml users too encline to defend Russias decision to invade Ukraine. That’s what my comment was more refering to/implying.
Thinking soviet Russia is the same as the Russian federation
Average lib.
Then we circle back to the beginning:
Why is it that anti-communists never seem to be capable of genuinely engaging with the stances of Marxists, and have to invent strawmen to reconcile their refusal to understand the Marxist point of view?
If it makes you feel better, there are Marxist-Leninist parties with anti Russia stances, just most MLs on this site are not members of those parties.
Removed by mod
Which is the end goal of communists, but you can’t really have a stateless society until all or nearly all countries are socialist unless you’re going the anarchist route.
Removed by mod
There’s some historical examples where that may have been the case but that’s not some universal constant that can’t be changed.
Fundamentally they both want the same thing in the end so disagreements on how you get there can be resolved. If 2 different areas/groups try 2 different paths there’s no reason they can’t work together where mutually beneficial.
Would people have to get over being too overly dogmatic about their way? Yes and that may be difficult but not impossible.
121·2 days agoFundamentally they both want the same thing in the end
I don’t think that is entirely true. Marxist and Anarchist have different analyses and therefore come to different conclusions.
Yeah if you’re getting very into the weeds on it Is there some minor difference between how that classless/stateless society operates?
Sure but most of the difference in analysis and conclusions is on how to arrive at the classless/stateless society.
The differences between the vision of classless/stateless societies communists and anarchists have is minor compared to pretty much any other broad 2 political ideologies have as what visions of the perfect society is.
Pretty major differences in structure, anarchism posits full horizontalism while Marxism posits full collectivization. We both take in many ways opposite solutions to the same fundamental problem of capitalism, based on different analysis. We still can collaborate and work together, but at some point there does exist irreconcilable distinctions, and the clearer we make those for everyone the more productive the conversations around each can be had.
Removed by mod
Cuba has sent doctors and other medical support to countries of many different ideologies. They would 100% assist an anarchist group if asked and it’s something they could provide.
Currently China and Vietnam are both willing to trade with countries of any ideology.
You’re latching on to a couple examples in the past and saying nothing else can happen besides that. If that’s going to be the extent of your argument no point in continuing this since there’s nothing left to talk about then.
Removed by mod
That thought terminating cliche doesn’t even make sense in this context
I like to think of global conflict as being world people vs world governments/elites. The govs and elites just frame global conflict as being country x vs country y to divide and conquer.
Straight outta 1984, where the world is kept in perpetual world war and nobody remembers why they’re at war. Orwell writes that war is the best business (arms) because the product is destroyed instantly. War is just another way the elites suck wealth from the citizens, whose taxes involuntarily fund it.
World elites = empire of usa
World people = everyone else
