People who claim communists are worse than nazis ignore reality

[The Epitome of Justice]

In the 21st century when has there ever been any communist carrying out a terror attack, a bombing, mass shooting and hate crime murders unlike Neo-Nazis/Fascists and other racist ideology advocates?

Communists of the 21st century: No gunman, no hate crime murders, no bombings and no mass shootings. Outstanding advocates for democratic rights and pointing out hypocrisy in the capitalist governments. Aside from a couple of riots and protests like occupy.

Neo-Nazis: Plenty, have killed dozens to a total of hundreds or more in the 21st century and killcount still going up. Take this recent example: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting.html

Now lets compare stormfront and revleft:

Stormfront: Linked to over a dozen hate crime murders as confirmed by news.

Revleft: None as opposed to stormfront, do you see any?

I find it funny how some try to say that "communists are worse than nazis" in the modern day anti-communist propaganda spilt on the internet. When they ignore the reality of 21st century communists to neo-nazis/racist ideology advocates.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So what you're saying is we're completely ineffectual and harmless. Sounds about right. You will never convince liberals communism is not worse than Nazism, and to them, it is, in any case, since Nazism is a way of managing capitalism and communism the movement to overthrow capitalism.

[The Epitome of Justice]

So what you're saying is we're completely ineffectual and harmless. Sounds about right. You will never convince liberals communism is not worse than Nazism, and to them, it is, in any case, since Nazism is a way of managing capitalism and communism the movement to overthrow capitalism.

I mean as an ideology and as an ideological movement in the 21st century. We've never carried out any terror attacks and hate crime murders unlike neo-nazis. We're fairly civilized as a movement compared to nazis.

[Sasha]

pretty sure self-identified communists or anarchists shoot, bomb and maim all the time, from the naxalites in india who blow up cops by the bussloads to the DHKC-P in turkey who executed a public prosecutor live on tv and even used suicide bombers, from the guerillo's in colombia to the anti-civ letterbomb attacks on scientists in mexico.

i'll give you the hatecrime stuff though (although the primmie/anticiv campaings against scientists are not that far removed, also some Palestinian leftist groups tend to be more concerned about whether their victims are simple jews then important zionists) but yeah, bigotry is not really in our program, but to pretend that brutal violence is not one of our possible tacticts is naive and just as counter productive as pointless terrorist voluntarism

[OnFire]

Communists = Struggle for liberation of everyone, more equality, less opression.

Fascists = Struggle for opression of everyone, no equality, total opression.

So if you like opression and hate equality and rights of the people, then you may think that Communists are "worse"...so that says a lot about those people claiming this BS.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I mean as an ideology and as an ideological movement in the 21st century. We've never carried out any terror attacks and hate crime murders unlike neo-nazis. We're fairly civilized as a movement compared to nazis.

Yes, "as an ideology and as an ideological movement in the 21st century", communism is almost nonexistent. And what small scattered groups exist are completely impotent. As such, we are "civilised", which is a polite way of saying we don't do anything.

Now if there was an actual revolutionary situation, would a lot of hard-to-stomach things be happening? Yeah. I mean, I don't really care about some self-proclaimed Maoists with an AK-47 fetish, every revolutionary situation in history has included things like scabs being killed (in Italy, I believe, a few were thrown into a furnace, which is the sort of death I wouldn't wish on anyone), cops and priest getting shot etc. Is all of that unpleasant? Sure it is. Would the bourgeoisie proclaim it a hate crime? Of course, that's why they have hate crime legislation in the first place. But does it make sense to go into moral fits over this? No.

I also don't really understand the point of appealing to liberals. Liberals base themselves on the "right" to private property, and if forced to choose between communism and fascism, they invariably choose the latter. Hell, the PNF in Italy was filled with former Liberals.

[RedWorker]

from the guerillo's in colombia to the anti-civ letterbomb attacks on scientists in mexico.

I fail to see how these are communists or part of the left at all.

[Sasha]

I fail to see how these are communists or part of the left at all.


i would say the same about stalinoids or anti-imp coattailers, i was just saying the narrow definition the OP uses of "communists" is silly

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

i would say the same about stalinoids

...like the guerrillas in Colombia.

I think arguing over which little groupuscule is communist and which is not is irrelevant here, because violence is pretty much endemic to revolutionary situations.

[The Disillusionist]

I wish leftists would finally just get it into their heads that Communists are not immune from fascism and extremist violence. Several examples have already been mentioned in this thread (Sendero Luminoso in Peru came immediately to my mind).

The problem is, whenever anyone mentions any kind of flaw associated with anyone who claims to be Communist, the rest of the people who claim to be Communists say, "Oh, well that guy/group wasn't REALLY Communist, they were actually fascist bourgeois scum, which completely explains their behavior, absolves us of any association with them, and lets us continue to criticize others who we deem to be fascist bourgeois scum."

I see that argument SOOOO often on this site. But we just can't ignore the fact that people/groups who attempt to implement Communist ideas in the real world very often fall into fascism and oppressive violence. To try to ignore that would be very dangerous. In fact, I can't think of a single successful large-scale Communist society that has ever really existed... though I can think of lots that failed spectacularly and with a lot of bloodshed.

If we keep just sticking our heads in the sand and pretend that our ideas aren't the problem, everyone else is, then Communism is going to keep failing, and fascism is going to keep being associated with it. Something needs to change before it can ever be successful.

Personally, I thought anarcho-Communism was the solution, because the focus on the absence of a state would prevent fascism, but now I'm thinking that an anarcho-Communist economy could never really work because it's not practical in any way... So.... I just keep thinking, as everyone else should as well.. maybe eventually we'll come up with something that really could work...

[Armchair Partisan]

The problem is, whenever anyone mentions any kind of flaw associated with anyone who claims to be Communist, the rest of the people who claim to be Communists say, "Oh, well that guy/group wasn't REALLY Communist, they were actually fascist bourgeois scum, which completely explains their behavior, absolves us of any association with them, and lets us continue to criticize others who we deem to be fascist bourgeois scum."

There is no point in the other extreme either. We are not them, we don't need to wring our hands over them or "prove" that we are somehow better than them as capitalist hecklers often expect us to.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I wish leftists would finally just get it into their heads that Communists are not immune from fascism and extremist violence. Several examples have already been mentioned in this thread (Sendero Luminoso in Peru came immediately to my mind).

The problem is, whenever anyone mentions any kind of flaw associated with anyone who claims to be Communist, the rest of the people who claim to be Communists say, "Oh, well that guy/group wasn't REALLY Communist, they were actually fascist bourgeois scum, which completely explains their behavior, absolves us of any association with them, and lets us continue to criticize others who we deem to be fascist bourgeois scum."

I see that argument SOOOO often on this site. But we just can't ignore the fact that people/groups who attempt to implement Communist ideas in the real world very often fall into fascism and oppressive violence. To try to ignore that would be very dangerous. In fact, I can't think of a single successful large-scale Communist society that has ever really existed... though I can think of lots that failed spectacularly and with a lot of bloodshed.

If we keep just sticking our heads in the sand and pretend that our ideas aren't the problem, everyone else is, then Communism is going to keep failing, and fascism is going to keep being associated with it. Something needs to change before it can ever be successful.

Personally, I thought anarcho-Communism was the solution, because the focus on the absence of a state would prevent fascism, but now I'm thinking that an anarcho-Communist economy could never really work because it's not practical in any way... So.... I just keep thinking, as everyone else should as well.. maybe eventually we'll come up with something that really could work...

(1) "Fascism" doesn't mean "anything I dislike". In fact fascism has been pretty much a non-issue on a global level since, well, the late fourties. The role played by fascism back in the day is today played by non-fascist nationalism, Islamism etc.

(2) We don't just say "the Sendero Luminoso weren't communists", we explain why they weren't (aren't?) communists, or why they're piss-poor communists, as the case might be. And it has nothing to do with them doing "bad things". As I said, any revolutionary situation is going to involve things that would make anyone uncomfortable.

[Rudolf]

Personally, I thought anarcho-Communism was the solution, because the focus on the absence of a state would prevent fascism, but now I'm thinking that an anarcho-Communist economy could never really work because it's not practical in any way... So.... I just keep thinking, as everyone else should as well.. maybe eventually we'll come up with something that really could work...


So basically you're saying that communism couldn't work. An 'anarcho-communist economy' obviously being identical to a communist 'economy'. The difference, at best, being down to how in the here and now but often not even that.

[Counterculturalist]

The problem is, whenever anyone mentions any kind of flaw associated with anyone who claims to be Communist, the rest of the people who claim to be Communists say, "Oh, well that guy/group wasn't REALLY Communist, they were actually fascist bourgeois scum, which completely explains their behavior, absolves us of any association with them, and lets us continue to criticize others who we deem to be fascist bourgeois scum."

I see that argument SOOOO often on this site. But we just can't ignore the fact that people/groups who attempt to implement Communist ideas in the real world very often fall into fascism and oppressive violence. To try to ignore that would be very dangerous. In fact, I can't think of a single successful large-scale Communist society that has ever really existed... though I can think of lots that failed spectacularly and with a lot of bloodshed.


There is some truth here. On the other hand, when communist/leftist movements lead to indefensible consequences because of blatantly incorrect theory and/or practice it's important to identify what went wrong. The right has an irritating habit of hurling accusations of "no true Scotsman" when we do this, in an attempt to force us to endorse the worst excesses of 20th century communism. We don't have to.

Edit: Xhar Xhar said it better while I was posting this.

[The Disillusionist]

(1) "Fascism" doesn't mean "anything I dislike". In fact fascism has been pretty much a non-issue on a global level since, well, the late fourties. The role played by fascism back in the day is today played by non-fascist nationalism, Islamism etc.

(2) We don't just say "the Sendero Luminoso weren't communists", we explain why they weren't (aren't?) communists, or why they're piss-poor communists, as the case might be. And it has nothing to do with them doing "bad things". As I said, any revolutionary situation is going to involve things that would make anyone uncomfortable.

I know what fascism is. I've read the definitions you've posted, and I agree with them. I will say, right now, as clearly as I can: In the real world, fascism and Communism have been very closely linked. It's unfortunate, but no amount of explaining that we do can explain it away.

Second, that is my point. According to the myriad explanations I've read on this site, NO ONE is really a Communist except those Communists on the internet who have never actually done anything. If Communism has failed in every practical sense, then I think we need to start examining it on a theoretical level.

Finally, every drop of blood spilled during a revolution is a failure on the part of that revolution. Sometimes failure is unavoidable, but it is failure nonetheless.

[The Disillusionist]

So basically you're saying that communism couldn't work. An 'anarcho-communist economy' obviously being identical to a communist 'economy'. The difference, at best, being down to how in the here and now but often not even that.


Yeah, I am basically saying that. But that isn't to say that I'm a capitalist now... I think it could work, if some theoretical changes were made.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I know what fascism is. I've read the definitions you've posted, and I agree with them. I will say, right now, as clearly as I can: In the real world, fascism and Communism have been very closely linked. It's unfortunate, but no amount of explaining that we do can explain it away.

See this is the point where you start providing evidence for your claims. :3


Second, that is my point. According to the myriad explanations I've read on this site, NO ONE is really a Communist except those Communists on the internet who have never actually done anything. If Communism has failed in every practical sense, then I think we need to start examining it on a theoretical level.

This is simply wrong. Everyone is going to list different people, but I can think of literally hundreds of communists, who certainly haven't spent their time on the Internet. Unless people like Lenin, Trotsky, Vietnamese Trotskyists, the Group of Internationalist Communists (if I acknowledge someone as a communist, it doesn't mean I think they're right, mind), etc. had time machines.


Finally, every drop of blood spilled during a revolution is a failure on the part of that revolution. Sometimes failure is unavoidable, but it is failure nonetheless.

Yes, that's your standpoint. It's an abstract, moralistic standpoint that is completely useless in any revolutionary situation.

[Rudolf]

Yeah, I am basically saying that. But that isn't to say that I'm a capitalist now... I think it could work, if some theoretical changes were made.


You're confusing me... so communism couldn't work but then it could with some theoretical changes? What could these theoretical changes be?

[Rafiq]

I'm sorry, but is it fair that Disillusonist is allowed to regularly degrade everyone's standards by posting outside of the learning section? He literally has no fucking idea about what he's talking about. He shits out platitudes that we've all heard - and it is only his arrogance which prevents him from being curious - i.e. only his arrogance which allows him to be CONFIDENT enough to talk shit about things he has no notion of, rather than politely satisfying what would be curiosity to anyone who cares about understanding the world.

Then again, for someone whose field of study encapsulates the self-limiting, infinite cycle of legitimizing the existing order while acquiring no new knowledge whatsoever, this is hardly surprising.


In fact, I can't think of a single successful large-scale Communist society that has ever really existed...


There are few users on this forum who are incapable of posting ANYTHING decent. You are one of them. Do you actually think with your ass? It is an honest question. Here's a hint: If there was a "successful Communist society", that entails more than a few things beyond a "society without bloodshed" - it entails definite qualifications for success. Among those qualifications is the actual survival of such a society, as well as the immediate aims it brings forth. Of course the former was a catastrophic failure - but there is no "obvious" implicit REASON for this failure that you philistines are owed a monopoly over. You go about shitposting all over this fucking forum with your drivel about how we "primitive" Marxists are closed minded, and yet you are literally incapable of using reason - you deal solely in appearances, wherein "dur, if dis powerful/impactful it is success". That is why, in order to substantiate your drivel, you make Olympic philosophic leaps while attempting to intimidate everyone with words that carry an aura of legitimacy about them - words that in reality don't amount to much except possessing the connotations of being backed up by the powerful - vague words like "science".

The fact of the matter is that if a "successful large scale Communist society" had ever existed, that would be an affront to we Marxists' standard of reason. How could there have been a successful large scale Communist society, given the events that had unfolded. What part of Communism as the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence are you incapable of understanding? The premises now in existence amount to nothing more than the conditions of capitalist society. You can make haughty pretenses to "Communism has failed everywhere dur" but you will never be able to establish a cohesive, scientific explanation for all of their failures in common. Which Communist states were wrought out as the actual culmination of proletarian struggle? Use your fucking head: the Eastern bloc as a post-war political entity was largely imposed externally (almost all of the states, save for East Germany - which had the best standard of living among them - were not advanced capitalist economies), and all of the Communist states in the third world were forged through romantic coups or popularly led revolutions whose demographic basis was always grounded in the rural petite-bourgeoisie.

You ask for a "successful Communist state" and I ask you to give me one such state wherein it was the proletariat which was the vehicle of Communism. It was Russia, and surprise surprise, Russia was the only substantial Communist state, i.e. that established the bourgoeis-romantic precedent of Communism. That is to say, even though the proletariat was largely decimated by civil war, and that industrialization created a new proletariat (in the process excluding them from the organs of power, their existence as one of subservience), Stalinism was built upon the carcass of the failed revolution.

The definite aims, in the short term were largely successful - in all Communist states, the remnants of feudalism were successfully destroyed, and the foundations of capitalist society were created from a new blank state - the necessary pre-requisites to it, universal education, rapidly declining infant mortality, the building of powerful public infrastructure, and so on.


In the real world, fascism and Communism have been very closely linked. It's unfortunate, but no amount of explaining that we do can explain it away.


This is how a fucking barbarian thinks - we're literally just supposed to ACCEPT these platitudes without subjecting them to any further critical evaluation - it's just "Der were linked, end of story, its too true to be encapsulated in words". And this clown makes pretenses to science?

The fact of the matter is that OF COURSE they are linked! Fascism was BUILT upon the necessity of emulating and mimicking the aesthetic of Communism in order to appease the national working class! YES fascism merely dislocated, obfuscated the coordinates of Communist rhetoric - replacing the capitalist with the Jew, retaining the spirit of self-sacrifice, struggle until death, and so on. The point is that this was a spectacle, devoid of affirmative substance. The reason bourgeois ideologues are able to understand it, or take it more seriously, is becasue Fascists spoke their language - because the truth is that Fascism was NEVER some revolution - in all of the countries where it took hold, it was largely a logical consequence of almost the linear development of the conditions in those states. Much of the policies of the Nazis were merely continuations of the policies of the Weimer Republic. Fascism happened precisely so that a revolution would NOT happen, everything was staged to compensate for the historical justice that was demanded, or would have already been demanded by the disgruntled and radicalized working classes. The difference is that Fascism was soulless - tell me Disillusionist, what DISTINGUISHED fascism from any other capitalist society in the 1930's? All of the 'economic policies' taken up by Fascist states were largely taken up by liberal states as well. So what was the difference? Again, a political and aesthetic difference.

Then again, if your point of comparison amounts to how much noise they made, how uncomfortable they made you with violence and so on - then fuck off! We've just about had enough of these fucking liberals tell us that we're identical with Fascists. The only difference is that we don't hold state power or hegemony - that is all we have in common, so of course the magnitude of our pretenses to action, violence and opposition to it might be similar. It only reflects the arrogance of the liberals, their feelings of unquestioned security and so on. Violence is an irrevocable reality of the class struggle. You don't give a FUCK about violence though, you care about ILLEGITIMATE violence. The bourgeois state is built upon violence, but this violence doesn't bother you because it is legitimate. Violence that involves social transformation, on the other hand, leaves you with a sense of ideological insecurity, destroying allthe sacred cows. Don't fucking talk to me about violence. Even the most secular liberals will hark in horror of the Stalinist destruction of churches and the "grotesqueness" of the cartoons made by the league of militant atheists. Fucking hypocrites.

So to summarize, OF COURSE you're going to see a similarity, because the Fascists COPIED the aesthetic of Communism. Ours was authentic, theirs was ritualistically staged. We didn't have to make loud pretenses to self-sacrifice, to struggle until death, to militant solidarity - it was INGRAINED in our actions, forming the very edifice of our collective power. And we notice this pattern with reactionaries in general - from "Libertarians" in the US to Nipsters in Europe, they have no authentic substance of their own, they merely appropriate language, and abstract from it in order to conform to a darkness whose true face cannot be brought to light for what it is.

I mean, can you imagine? It's like saying that radicals and Neo-Nazis are similar because there is a strong "Nipster" phenomena among the latter. Fucking insanity!


Finally, every drop of blood spilled during a revolution is a failure on the part of that revolution. Sometimes failure is unavoidable, but it is failure nonetheless.


By what qualifications? On the contrary, the success of the revolution is measured by the depth of its ocean of blood. Blood is integral to the very demand for revolution, and any radical who does not lust for the blood of the enemy is no radical. That is what we are, plain and simple - for if there is no bloodshed in a revolution, that is a life condemned by it that walks freely, if there is no bloodshed in a revolution, then the necessary trauma from which a new order is built will not be possible. If this offends you, if it makes you uncomfortable, then leave - no one wants you anyway, Disillusionist, you offer nothing of substance to this forum and you pollute it with your unfounded, empty confidence in drivel.

Our order is built upon violence. To destroy it, all the violence which sustains it will be unleashed. You think those fucking yuppie scum, you think those evolutionary psychologist pieces of shit are going to welcome such developments with open arms? You think that these people, capitalists, Silicon Valley scumfuckers - you think they could even SURVIVE in the midst of a radical social transformation that would undermine EVERYTHING which makes them unique, EVERYTHING which gives meaning to their lives, EVERYTHING which allows them to wake up in the morning while looking into the mirror thinking that's a human staring back at them? The bourgeoisie and their toadies, they will strap onto themselves suicide vests before they accept the proletarian dictatorship. They will do everything possible, everything within their power to stop us until it sucks the life out of them. But here stands Disillusionist, with his hypocritical, shameful petty moralism - claiming that "blood spilled is a failure on part of the revolution". Here's a secret: Our revolution is not made with pretenses to the sacredness of human life. Our revolution is not made with pretenses to the holistic well being of the human race and their innate, sacred rights. For a fucking 'scientist' who makes pretenses to being strictly scientific with no room for "speculation', you sure do subconsciously gobble up a whole lot of fucking bullshit. You might not openly defend the idea that it's an affront to the cosmic order, or any other such metaphysical drivel, but you BELIEVE it regardless. Like the Israelis who do not believe in a god, but yet think he gave them the holy land regardless, you DESIGNATE your beliefs in ACTION, not by the abstractions you openly give us.

You just don't know how far this shit goes. You just don't know what the implications are for the demand to abolish capitalist society beyond a nice little abstraction that fulfills a stupid moral platitude, plain and simple. You're like every Chomskyan.

[Rafiq]

How can Communism fail? Is communism somehow a hypotheses? A pretense to a utopia? Communism EXISTS as a movement, and has existed. And it will exist again. No matter if we keep failing in holding power - we do not need to legitimize ourselves with "success".

[cal3bg]

I tend to believe that the majority of people really have no idea what communism truly is. They only have the media's distorted image of it and in the 21st century associate it primarily with the Kim family of North Korea. This is what propaganda does. No one has any recollection of how it was the Communist Party of the USA which was at the forefront of so many battles in the early 20th century like equal pay, 8-hour work day, ending child labor, racial equality, the 'Scotsboro Boys' case, etc. In reality communists and leftists have stood on the right side of history, though this is rarely if ever acknowledged. Hell, I come across people all the time who truly believe Adolf Hitler WAS a Communist(!) They are genuinely shocked and feel quite stupid when I tell them that in fact, he hated Communism and Communists so much that they were the very first and for a time the primary enemy of the Nazi (National Socialist) Party in Germany.

[Sibotic]

Surely such people aren't referring to the 21st Century, they're referring to the 20th, in any case I think that socialist violence and otherwise is generally more coherent than isolated Neo-Nazi violence, not that anyone thinks that Neo-Nazis are the worst problem of Nazism. You'd be surprised if much terror, which is becoming increasingly pronounced, didn't spell issues for the remains of liberal capitalism - despite which it might also be simplistic to treat communism as a movement like Neo-Nazism with less of a clear basis, or to assume that explicit communist identification is strictly necessary for its actions, so long as this remains a core of affairs. In any case, the reference to Stalinist Russia at the time would ignore the violence perpetrated by communists and the various civil wars, wars, etc., not to mention the immediate hostility that any movement in such a direction tends to beget, which in any case isn't going to change so much as be marginalized and irrelevant - and in any case, isn't all that's really left for most political orders by now relatively mild and irrelevant outrage at things, other than the ones who can win?

[Zoop]

Finally, every drop of blood spilled during a revolution is a failure on the part of that revolution. Sometimes failure is unavoidable, but it is failure nonetheless.

Blood has to be avoided during a revolution? And here I was thinking that the revolution was going to be fun :glare:

[mushroompizza]

F.A.R.C. and the I.R.A. are still around, the IRA just tried to blow up the king. Leftist terrorists are no were as gruesome or as frequent as the right wing terrorists.
If you want to read more look here.... https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Left-wing_terrorism#May_19th_Communist_Organization

[The Modern Prometheus]

pretty sure self-identified communists or anarchists shoot, bomb and maim all the time, from the naxalites in india who blow up cops by the bussloads to the DHKC-P in turkey who executed a public prosecutor live on tv and even used suicide bombers, from the guerillo's in colombia to the anti-civ letterbomb attacks on scientists in mexico.

i'll give you the hatecrime stuff though (although the primmie/anticiv campaings against scientists are not that far removed, also some Palestinian leftist groups tend to be more concerned about whether their victims are simple jews then important zionists) but yeah, bigotry is not really in our program, but to pretend that brutal violence is not one of our possible tacticts is naive and just as counter productive as pointless terrorist voluntarism

Well i don't think any Marxist or Anarchist who is rooted in reality thinks that pacifism is a useful tool. Violence indeed has it's purpose just like terror does. The difference between Communists and Fascists is that when Communists arrive at the conclusion that violence is necessary they commit violence as a act of class war. Fascists on the otherhand commit acts of violence because of Ultranationalism, ethnic cleansing, xenophobia and all their usual bullshit.

[Comrade Jacob]

But...but...100 million + killed by communizm and only 10 million killed by Nazism.
Communism is 10X worse than Nazism confirmed.

[consuming negativity]

In the 21st century when has there ever been any communist carrying out a terror attack, a bombing, mass shooting and hate crime murders unlike Neo-Nazis/Fascists and other racist ideology advocates?

Communists of the 21st century: No gunman, no hate crime murders, no bombings and no mass shootings. Outstanding advocates for democratic rights and pointing out hypocrisy in the capitalist governments. Aside from a couple of riots and protests like occupy.

Neo-Nazis: Plenty, have killed dozens to a total of hundreds or more in the 21st century and killcount still going up. Take this recent example: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting.html

Now lets compare stormfront and revleft:

Stormfront: Linked to over a dozen hate crime murders as confirmed by news.

Revleft: None as opposed to stormfront, do you see any?

I find it funny how some try to say that "communists are worse than nazis" in the modern day anti-communist propaganda spilt on the internet. When they ignore the reality of 21st century communists to neo-nazis/racist ideology advocates.

i agree with the statement in the topic, but this is really shitty logic.

yes, communists have carried out plenty of attacks that fall under the scope of "terrorist attacks". even recently. not just because "terrorist" has become code-word for "anybody we don't like who uses violence", but also because in actuality, it does happen. the various people calling themselves the RAF were pretty notorious in Germany for a while, for example. that said, they tend to be a lot different in character, and recently, have been less numerous; at least i know that's true in europe. but, as has been mentioned, the indian subcontinent and central/south america have plenty of violent communist activity going on. you're just not going to hear about it in america unless you seek it out - why would they give publicity to us?

also, stormfront is a much bigger website than revleft. for various reasons. point being, this assertion doesn't hold up under any amount of real scrutiny from anyone serious.

personally, i like to address the terrorism issue by pointing to the double-taps used by the US in the middle east. they're listed in the us reasoning for classifying hamas as a terrorist group, and they involve attacking first-responders after drone attacks. killing medical personnel, family members, etc. to scare them out of helping the wounded and ensuring more deaths, in addition to any benefit derived from killing any of them (such as their not being able to provide assistance in the future from being dead). if that's not terrorism - if a fucking pilot-less drone that you can't even see just randomly dropping fucking bombs on your town out of the sky is not terrorism - there is no such thing as terrorism. israel does the same thing in the palestinian territories.

[G4b3n]

See this is the point where you start providing evidence for your claims. :3



This is simply wrong. Everyone is going to list different people, but I can think of literally hundreds of communists, who certainly haven't spent their time on the Internet. Unless people like Lenin, Trotsky, Vietnamese Trotskyists, the Group of Internationalist Communists (if I acknowledge someone as a communist, it doesn't mean I think they're right, mind), etc. had time machines.



Yes, that's your standpoint. It's an abstract, moralistic standpoint that is completely useless in any revolutionary situation.

So you really do define "communists" as only those who adopt a party line of Orthodox positions of a dead 20th century ideology? I always thought that to be more or less slander to the Trotskyite camp drawn from their only existing on western University campuses for the most part.

[The Modern Prometheus]

But...but...100 million + killed by communizm and only 10 million killed by Nazism.
Communism is 10X worse than Nazism confirmed.

Your using numbers thought up by those cultural Marxists at them there Liberal universities. In reality Communism killed a billion people atleast so they are 100 times worse then Nazis :ohmy:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So you really do define "communists" as only those who adopt a party line of Orthodox positions of a dead 20th century ideology? I always thought that to be more or less slander to the Trotskyite camp drawn from their only existing on western University campuses for the most part.

I don't know what kind of "orthodoxy" the GIC can be said to have followed (is this even grammatically correct?), but it certainly isn't any of my orthodoxies. I don't think they were orthodox. I don't think they were right. But they were communists. So were "Bordigist" militants in Italy and Spain. Doesn't mean I agree with them either.

That said, I do think being a communist means something. Self-identification is not enough. I don't care if Prachanda or Bombacci thought of themselves as communists. They weren't.

[Troika]

How can Communism fail? Is communism somehow a hypotheses? A pretense to a utopia? Communism EXISTS as a movement, and has existed. And it will exist again. No matter if we keep failing in holding power - we do not need to legitimize ourselves with "success".

Communism is about the total destruction of vertical hierarchies. It's not so much about the proletariat holding power as it is the total obliteration of the ruling classes and their mechanisms of control over us.

The power relations within full communism are the natural power relations that humanity has defaulted to throughout our history. Communism will win because it's how humans naturally associate. Bakunin was right--we don't even need a transitional state.