Sure, but a lot of other humans didn't. Can't much write off an entire species because we failed to prevent an outlier from gaining power for a little while.
The larger causes were interimperial squabbling which is inevitable when capitalism reaches the stage of competing for foreign markets.
Disagreement is treason
Source?
reference to your precious cult of tradition
Lol. Yes trying to return to an imagined past and having an intellectual tradition are the same thing /s
By that logic basically all ideology(including yours) is fascism, and to not be a fascist we cannot learn literally anything ever about politics.
(Nazism is also modernist you muppet)
You said I was rejecting modernism by rejecting liberal democracy, which is literally rooted in enlightenment ideas. I was saying you are not making sense, because you are saying I'm rejecting modernism when I'm rejecting enlightenment era ideology.
which you of course misread all the time that’s another strike for Newspeak
How about another strike for literally knowing what words mean and using them properly? You did not say modern, you said modernism. If you didn't want to be misinterpreted, do not use language that conveys an entirely different meaning.
lastly the equation of bourgeois oligarchy with liberal democracy (one does not imply the other), that’s strike four
I wish I had the confidence to make such bold claims with so little knowledge. Have you even ever read about "dictatorship of capital"? Do you even know what that term means? How about you explain it in your own words for me.
obsession with a plot and/or the enemy is simultaneously weak and strong, could go either way. Maybe just popular elitism
Loling at popular elitism.
Also I will never claim that the current state of capitalism is weak.
Also again you are misreading the 14 points as some litmus test.
Being genocidal and being exceptionally genocidal both earn you a one way ticket to “shoot on sight” land in my book, debating which one is worse is thoroughly pointless from a moral standpoint and a red herring from a political science standpoint as being a fascist does not require a kill count (though it usually predicts a pretty fucking high one.)
Okay, so people who support liberal "democracies" like the US currently backing genocide should be shot on sight then? Or just the governments responsible?
The problem with "those genocidal communists" is that liberal democracies are significantly more genocidal. You want to go with the least bad system.
Take the notion that man-made famine counts as genocide. 8 million people starve under the capitalist world order every year.
You gotta be fucking trolling, what fucking western liberal democracies? France?
The US, Britain. France.
Western Europe was almost all constitutional monarchies until the end of WW2 and even then what fucking backing of Tsarist Russia?
The US, France, Britain, and other countries literally invaded the USSR to try to restore the monarchy.
Also who the fuck is trivialising the holocaust now by mentioning it in the same breath as pogroms, as if the scale and systematic nature of the former don’t make them completely disanalogous?
My point is that the amount of antisemitism in the soviet union wasn't even approaching the level of pogroms, which was much smaller scale than the holocaust.
I reiterate my former point: Fuck off tankie scum.
Why don't you call me woke next, CHUD.
Umberto Eco and observe how the USSR gets a score of 10 out of 14, where of course one would be sufficient for fascism to coalesce
This is a elementary school misreading of that text, it was explicitly not supposed to be a litmus test.
Also how you were all too happy to display rejection of modernism by your implicit dissing of liberal democracies.
Marxism is literally a modernist philosophy, liberalism is rooted in the enlightenment era. Have you opened a history book in the last 5 years?
Please, go ahead, tell me about the grand colonial empire of Estonia! Of Greenland! Of Samoa!
Marxist democracies > bourgeois oligarchy aka liberal democracy
Morally? I’m not talking about morally I’m talking objectively and no of course it was objectively fascist.
Okay, define fascism in a way that excludes liberal democracies and their colonies or neocolonies but includes the USSR. I dont think you know what fascism is.
So was Italy and they didn’t do the Holocaust.
They literally committed a genocide in Africa as part of their political project, they wanted to basically manifest destiny the Mediterranean, did you not hear about it because the victims weren't (conditionally) white? Do you think they didn't help the Germans do the Holocaust?
is Scientology, in case you’re looking for an example of non-racist fascists. So are Kahanites
Okay this shows me you can't give a coherent definition of fascism. Also imagine not thinking scientology is racist. Lol.
Kahanites and they definitely aren’t antisemitic, being Jews and all that.
Lolol are you seriously going to make that argument? Do I need to pull up photos of Jewish people who collaborated with the nazis?
Theyre rigged in the sense that you're going to get a far right and ultra far right candidate, which is good enough for me to call US elections rigged.
Capitalism literally caused both world wars.
Can you point me to the exact sentence where I trivialised the holocaust? Hint: I didn’t say anything about the holocaust. All I gave you is a link, the rest is your imagination.
Oh, so to clarify, you don't think that the USSR could be described as morally equivalent to fascism?
You, OTOH, are severely trivialising antisemitism within the USSR. Stop fucking fanboying.
Only in the sense that it is trivial in scale compared to the alternative socioeconomic systems of the time.
Also a woman, stop being sexist by assuming a male default.
And none of that antisemitism was home-grown, it was all the fault of those evil foreigners making poor Russian nobles and priests do stuff?
During the Russian Civil War the US, Britain and France sure militarily and financially supported those nobles and priests who did pogroms regaining power. They went so far as to invade the USSR. They had previous working relationships with them and wanted them back in power. The nobles and priests were antisemitic, as were their western partners.
Oh my god there was antisemitism in the USSR, even among some leadership! Several doctors got killed!
You're right, a few incidences of antisemitism are the same as the holocaust, or the pogroms that the pre-soviet monarchy backed by western liberal democracies engaged in. Or the antisemitism in the post soviet union liberal democracies. /s
You are a deeply unserious person. And a holocaust trivializer if it "owns the tankies" apparently. Great priorities.
Eco claims disagreement was treason in the USSR? What supporting evidence does he use?
Bwahahahahaha this is really funny, literally reading a book on expanding marxist concepts into the sphere of transness
Marxism is a living intellectual tradition about ruthless critique, which includes of past leaders and thinkers.
Lol, sure, you can define words to mean whatever you want.
On democracy- literally every socialist state has more democracy than bourgeois democracies, because the people are (imperfectly) represented by politicians, the politicians are not there to serve capital.
Tell me how your anarchist projects in Catalonia and Ukraine were actually based anti-authoritarians when they did labor and concentration camps. Or when Ukraine was basically a military dictatorship, and enabled kulaks to massacre Jewish people.
Oh, or tell me about your more modern projects (the ones that actually claim to be anarchists, not indigenous resistors in Central America who don't claim to be socialist or anarchist)
"Anarchism is a coat that only leaks when it is wet. "
Wait, so your argument is that the labor aristocracy actually controls your country? You are responding to me asking you if you could define dictatorship of capital.
Then what youre saying holds no water? Sufficient to coalesce around isn't the same as a definition of.
Also Marxism doesn't really fit any single point in the definition.