• @rottingleaf
    link
    354 months ago

    Bolsheviks literally exterminated entire social groups because they believed they were impure. Calling people “kulaks” and such.

    They also deported (as in half dying in the way) to Siberia whole peoples, like Chechens and Ingushs.

    Also some peoples by ethnicity alone were deemed suspicious in certain parts of USSR and forcefully moved from there. That’s how there are very few Greeks in Crimea.

    And you have those hammer and sickle on the “far left” pic.

      • @rottingleaf
        link
        94 months ago

        I agree, but the author used hammer&sickle as the illustration of “far left”.

          • Cowbee [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            9
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            It originated in the Soviet Union, it’s associated with Communism because of the Soviet Union. It’s only a symbol of Communism within the context of the USSR, if you believe the model of the USSR to be fascist then you believe the Hammer and Sickle to be symbolic of fascism.

            Alternatively, you can dissapprove of the model of the USSR while recognizing it as Socialist and not fascist.

            • @undergroundoverground
              link
              44 months ago

              It originated under tsarist Russia. So, by your own “logic”, its a symbol of pre-industrial surfism.

              Sure, I could recognise it as that but then we’d both be wrong. You see, much like the peoples democratic republic of Korea, simply declaring your country to be something doesn’t make it true. Its actually a bit more complicated than that.

              • Cowbee [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                6
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                It originated under tsarist Russia. So, by your own “logic”, its a symbol of pre-industrial surfism.

                “Surfism?” Sounds rad 🏄

                In all seriousness, the Tsarist Regime was overthrown in 1917, while the Hammer and Sickle was first proposed in 1918, and adopted officially by the Bolsheviks and the USSR as it formed out of the Russian Civil War. It has since become a symbol of Marxism through association with the USSR, not despite it. The H&S was symbiolized for the USSR, not necessarily Marxism itself.

                Sure, I could recognise it as that but then we’d both be wrong. You see, much like the peoples democratic republic of Korea, simply declaring your country to be something doesn’t make it true. Its actually a bit more complicated than that.

                The DPRK did not invent the concept of Democracy, nor have groups since the DPRK adopted their symbolism as a means to associate themselves with Democracy. This is a flawed comparison foundationally, because the various Communist groups that have brandished the Hammer and Sickle are at minimum supporting Marxism-Leninism, the state ideology of the USSR, even if these groups support or denounce Stalinism (ie, Trotskyist orgs).

                If you can find a significant number of groups brandishing the Hammer and Sickle but denouncing the USSR in totality, then please, be my guest.

                • @undergroundoverground
                  link
                  04 months ago

                  *Serfism

                  Cool story, still a poor argument.

                  The DPRK did not invent the concept of >Democracy,

                  Whats that got to do with anything? Are you attempting to claim the USSR invented socialism? I sure hope not.

                  or have groups since the DPRK adopted their symbolism as a means to associate themselves with Democracy. This is a flawed comparison foundationally, because the various Communist groups that have brandished the Hammer and Sickle are at minimum supporting Marxism-Leninism, the state ideology of the USSR, even if these groups support or denounce Stalinism (ie, Trotskyist orgs).

                  Yeah, you’ve got yourself mixed up with the symbolism here. I understand why you don’t want to venture away from it but we are going to have too.

                  Its a perfectly good comparison for showing why simply declaring a country to be something is, at best, problematic. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make but I’m sure you made it well enough for whatever argument it would actually fit in.

                  Let’s make it real simple, is the peoples democratic republic of Korea a democracy?

                  • Cowbee [he/him]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    6
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    Whats that got to do with anything? Are you attempting to claim the USSR invented socialism? I sure hope not.

                    Not my point. My point is that the specific symbol of the H&S was created by those that formed the USSR as a symbol of the USSR. Orgs adopting it are identifying themselves as Marxist-Leninist, the state ideology of the USSR.

                    Yeah, you’ve got yourself mixed up with the symbolism here. I understand why you don’t want to venture away from it but we are going to have too.

                    Its a perfectly good comparison for showing why simply declaring a country to be something is, at best, problematic. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make but I’m sure you made it well enough for whatever argument it would actually fit in.

                    The Hammer and Sickle did not predate the Soviet System. It was not some vaguely Socialist symbol, but one created by and for the USSR. The Hammer and Sickle is not a declaration that the USSR is Socialist, the Hammer and Sickle itself is a declaration of the USSR itself.

                    The point I am driving home here is that various anti-USSR Socialist orgs exist, and use symbols like The Fist and Rose or the Anarchist symbols of the Black Cat or Circle A. Deliberately choosing to use the Hammer and Sickle identifies Marxism-Leninism and support for the general ideology of the USSR, because alternative symbols exist and are used by non-Marxist Socialists.

                    Let’s make it real simple, is the peoples democratic republic of Korea a democracy?

                    It doesn’t matter, I understand that your point is that what States label themselves as doesn’t determine what they are. I agree with you on that concept, the Nazis for example were fascists, not Socialists in any capacity. However, the Hammer and Sickle was not some generalized symbol for Marxism adopted by the USSR as well as other Socialist groups, it was created by and for the USSR, so it never had a period where it could be disassociated with the USSR.

                    Put another way, if someone adopted the Stars and Stripes as a symbol of freedom, you would not be able to untie that from support for the system of the United States.

                    The simple fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of Marxists globally do support the general idealized system of the USSR, at the very least, ie Soviet Democracy, Central Planning, Democratic Centralism, and so forth, which is why they take on the mantle of the USSR through the Hammer and Sickle, even if they decide to denounce actions taken by the Soviets, or believe it to have failed to actualize its ideals.

          • @rottingleaf
            link
            24 months ago

            Well, others have answered you that it’s the symbol of “worker and peasant Red Army”, as hammer and sickle symbolize. And a five ended star was, I think, a military symbol of limited popularity in Russia before Communism, while Red Army simply made the color constant. The star was also initially upside down, as a way to defy Christianity, this is not a joke. But later they, apparently, decided that it being upside down is juvenile.

        • @undergroundoverground
          link
          04 months ago

          Only fascists pretend that fascists were socialists.

          Its almost as if mussolini got kicked out of the Italian socliast league specifically for not remotely socialist.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            14 months ago

            Movements don’t rise from nothing. His first supporters were card carrying members of the Italian Socialist Party. “Kicked out” of a party you replace is a weird way to say it.

            • @undergroundoverground
              link
              14 months ago

              His first supporters were nothing of the sort and the fascists fought the socialists.

                • @undergroundoverground
                  link
                  14 months ago

                  I agree. However, fascsists aren’t socialists. If it isn’t socialism for everyone it isn’t socialism at all.

                  The national socialists had to change their name from what it was previously. Hitler wanted to use “socialist” as a buzzword to trick idiots.

    • @kameecoding
      link
      154 months ago

      because ironically the author of the meme made the best of fucks up made an unironic meme, Tankies are just Nazis wearing red.

    • Justas🇱🇹
      link
      fedilink
      34 months ago

      Yes, and they destroyed most of the Baltic intelligentsia via exile to Siberia.

      Forcefully relocated Ukrainians, Germans and Poles to purify post war borders which helped to turn Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine into nation states.

      Then they accused Lithuanians, Ukrainians and the Polish of nationalism during 1980s independence movements, the same nationalism they actively helped create since 1945.

      • @rottingleaf
        link
        -34 months ago

        No need to single out Baltics really. The same happened everywhere.

        Then they accused Lithuanians, Ukrainians and the Polish of nationalism during 1980s independence movements, the same nationalism they actively helped create since 1945.

        Let’s please remember that inside USSR the first such movement to gain traction was the one of NK’s unification with Armenian SSR. And also the first one to be met with force. Independent Azerbaijan basically took the matter where USSR’s central government left it.

        Dunno why I’m trying to make a case of NK’s independence being as solid as that of Baltic countries or something. It’s not about laws, but about strength anyway. All the “international institutions” have made it clear that any principle is sold cheap.

        the same nationalism they actively helped create since 1945.

        Actually since middle 30-s Soviet ideology started turning in that direction. During WWII this, of course, accelerated with war propaganda.