• Tatar_Nobility@lemmy.mlEnglish
    2013·
    3 days ago

    The “oppression” you’re referring to is confiscating the properties of bourgeois capitalists and landlords, and imprisoning them and their accomplices in case of resistance. This confiscation and appropriation by the state is what makes free, universal care and other social benefits possible. It’s absurd to expect the features of communism without the policies behind them.

    Also, the idea that authoritarian socialist governments just have a sadistic tendency to oppress and torture poor peasants is deeply unserious and a work of imagination created by western capitalist propaganda.

    • belluck@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      146·
      3 days ago

      The oppression they’re referring to is shooting at protestors wanting democratic reforms. The comment before that literally gives an example, the least you could do is look into it.

      • Tatar_Nobility@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1110·
        3 days ago

        First of all, socialist governments, like any other government, did not use force on protestors unless provoked by seditious behavior (i.e. coup attempt or political unrest), and only in proportion, which was the case in Hungary and in China. Stories about tanks crushing the bodies of protestors is fictitious. Also, the history of the Soviet Union, the PRC and other socialist polities is filled with workers protests that were left unaltered because they are a natural part in the process of building socialism. Thus, the idea that freedom of expression was inexistent under socialism is false, which leads me to my second point.

        The claim that the riots in socialist states called for “democratic” reforms is the furthest thing from the truth. In the case of Hungary, the 1956 uprising was orchestrated by the Prime Minister in order to establish a capitalist multi-party system and restore the property of the big landowners after they were purged in the preceding decade and their industries nationalized by the state. If you consider this to be “democracy” then you cannot consider yourself to be a leftist.

      • Tatar_Nobility@lemmy.mlEnglish
        98·
        3 days ago

        300 communists were arrested and imprisoned by the Provisional Revolutionary Committee but hundreds of others escaped. The prison warden, Shustov, claimed to be an anarchist and planned to execute 23 Bolshevik prisoners, although the execution was prevented by the arrival of the Red Army.

        The mutiny was supported by members of the White Army and British foreign minister George Curzon encouraged the Finnish government to intervene against the Bolsheviks.

        On 17 March, the mutiny was defeated and Petrichenko ordered the crews of Sevastopol and Petropavlovsk to destroy their ships and go to Finland. The soldiers did not follow orders and arrested many members of the Provisional Revolutionary Committee. In May, Petrichenko went to Finland and joined the White Army under General Pyotr Wrangel.

        Source.

    • TheObviousSolution@lemmy.caEnglish
      38·
      2 days ago

      Citations in an uncensored medium needed.

      “Confiscating the properties of <insert populist excuse here>, imprisoning them and their accomplices in case of resistance. This confiscation and appropriation by the state is what makes <insert idealistic talking points that funny enough always seem to fall by the way side in terms of a priority to rounding up people yet is always the goal supposedly being reached> possible.”

      This seems like an instantiation of neocolonialism adlibs. Is your name Trump, Netanyahu, or Putin by any chance? The fact that you imply that these are in any way a requirement for universal care or social benefits gives your game away.

      • Tatar_Nobility@lemmy.mlEnglish
        63·
        2 days ago

        This isn’t the checkmate you think it is.

        “Fascists brush their teeth twice a day. You also brush your teeth. That means you are a fascist!!!”

        Do not omit the context from the general notion. I am speaking of bourgeois industrialists who exploit the working class, and not native populations with the right to sovereignty.

        • TheObviousSolution@lemmy.caEnglish
          35·
          2 days ago

          So no citations, just the same old regurgitated propaganda that has been in the library stands for decades. I think we’ve reached common ground, you recognize you are basically proposing:

          “Confiscating the properties of <insert populist excuse here>, imprisoning them and their accomplices in case of resistance. This confiscation and appropriation by the state is what makes <insert idealistic talking points that funny enough always seem to fall by the way side in terms of a priority to rounding up people yet is always the goal supposedly being reached> possible.”

          And I’m just pointing it out. You speak of <insert populist excuse here> that only easily materializing in the caricatures you have in your mind but which you would do your best bourgeois impersonation to apply liberally if you ever got the power to do so. This isn’t the checkmate you think it is, you are just wearing a different brand of rhetoric that just ends up devolving in a pretty similar way.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.mlEnglish
        51·
        1 day ago

        This seems like an instantiation of neocolonialism adlibs.

        Someone needs to tell Mohammed Mossadegh that he was doing neocolonialism when he nationalized the natural resources that had been stolen by British colonizers and that he’s exactly like Netanyahu for it. I guess the CIA was right to overthrow him, democracy be damned.

        What an absolutely insane take.