It’s not convenient to admit because they’ve been used as boogiemen by opposing factions for so long, but the Bolsheviks and Nazis had a lot in common. If we can’t recognize the features that made these regimes so harmful then we won’t recognize them in our own society either, even as they grow stronger every day.
Close enough, welcome back “red fascism” narrative. Are we going to wave tricolors while yelling “no to communism!” while hand-in-hand with fascists as seen historically?
Hyperboles aside, Bolsheviks and Nazis are polar opposites (with some superficial overlap). Bolsheviks were a revolutionary communist party on a mission to liberate workers and help other communist parties internationally, but it eventually fell into opportunism due to various factors such as underdevelopment, failure to achieve internationalism, Stalin being THE opportunist who later ordered for the old Bolshevik guard to be murdered, etc.
Nazis on the other hand were a direct response to existential capital crisis which stemmed from poor post-war economic conditions and worker militancy/uprisings (that aimed to topple the existing capitalist order, being inspired by USSR). Nazis were there to reinforce and protect capital while crushing the workers.
If anything, a more apt comparison would be between Liberal Democracies and Nazism, given how one directly leads to another once existential crisis hits and workers start to rebel, rhetorical similarities such as nationalism, and both having the exact same purpose which is to ensure capitalist domination over society.
Which actions did they take that were polar opposites? Lenin may have written books with different ideas than Hitler, but the way they governed was quite similar. This is because the logic of autocratic power is always the same, and once Lenin had crushed the autonomy of the people (and their Soviets, unions, village councils, etc.), that logic became inevitable.
Stalin simply took the same actions to a further logical conclusion. But they were categorically similar to the earlier Bolsheviks. Even before the revolution, the seeds were planted with Lenin’s ban on internal dissent and tight control over party members.
People always say liberal democracy inevitably leads to fascism but is there actual evidence for this? Is there some serious analysis you can point to? Because on a long enough time scale, every possible society will become every other possible society, but that’s not a very meaningful statement.
Dude, the Bolsheviks were the party of Lenin! They definitionally, not a commendation from me, could have been communists strictly judged from their actions! The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was state capitalist!
Tho I agree that its super sad that the names of this two ideologies are substitutions cartoonishly evil
So nazi and commie at the same time? Dude, you’re living in an echo chamber
Russia has not been communist for quite a while now. Putin may have cut his teeth in the communist party, but Russia under Putin is an oligarchy.
He named two fundamentally opposite ideologies as the same and you and me are being downvoted… I love the internet
It’s not convenient to admit because they’ve been used as boogiemen by opposing factions for so long, but the Bolsheviks and Nazis had a lot in common. If we can’t recognize the features that made these regimes so harmful then we won’t recognize them in our own society either, even as they grow stronger every day.
Close enough, welcome back “red fascism” narrative. Are we going to wave tricolors while yelling “no to communism!” while hand-in-hand with fascists as seen historically?
Hyperboles aside, Bolsheviks and Nazis are polar opposites (with some superficial overlap). Bolsheviks were a revolutionary communist party on a mission to liberate workers and help other communist parties internationally, but it eventually fell into opportunism due to various factors such as underdevelopment, failure to achieve internationalism, Stalin being THE opportunist who later ordered for the old Bolshevik guard to be murdered, etc.
Nazis on the other hand were a direct response to existential capital crisis which stemmed from poor post-war economic conditions and worker militancy/uprisings (that aimed to topple the existing capitalist order, being inspired by USSR). Nazis were there to reinforce and protect capital while crushing the workers.
If anything, a more apt comparison would be between Liberal Democracies and Nazism, given how one directly leads to another once existential crisis hits and workers start to rebel, rhetorical similarities such as nationalism, and both having the exact same purpose which is to ensure capitalist domination over society.
Which actions did they take that were polar opposites? Lenin may have written books with different ideas than Hitler, but the way they governed was quite similar. This is because the logic of autocratic power is always the same, and once Lenin had crushed the autonomy of the people (and their Soviets, unions, village councils, etc.), that logic became inevitable.
Stalin simply took the same actions to a further logical conclusion. But they were categorically similar to the earlier Bolsheviks. Even before the revolution, the seeds were planted with Lenin’s ban on internal dissent and tight control over party members.
People always say liberal democracy inevitably leads to fascism but is there actual evidence for this? Is there some serious analysis you can point to? Because on a long enough time scale, every possible society will become every other possible society, but that’s not a very meaningful statement.
Dude, the Bolsheviks were the party of Lenin! They definitionally, not a commendation from me, could have been communists strictly judged from their actions! The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was state capitalist!
Tho I agree that its super sad that the names of this two ideologies are substitutions cartoonishly evil