this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
786 points (97.8% liked)

Memes

53144 readers
1175 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Everyone in Europe killing each other every generation predates capitalism. Capitalism did increase the scale though; after the fall of the western roman empire, we didn't see armies of that size until Napoleon managed to draft a million men in a country of 30 million.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago

Perhaps you would prefer "the ruling class"?

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lmfao, sorry (not sorry), I should have included feudalists too I guess, to avoid bootlicking pedants.. 🙄

The point stands - war is waged for profit by profiteers, not by random civilians trying to live their lives, always was, always will be.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One exception to it : fascists managed to convince people who can only lose stuff to a war that it's good for them too.

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One exception to it : ~~fascists~~ capitalists managed to convince people who can only lose stuff to a war that it’s good for them too.

Fascism is capitalism in decay, there is no exception.

I'd say facsism is just capitalism when you try to say no.

As in literally, people tried to say no via socialism and then fascism was invented.

[–] bi_tux@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (8 children)

don't worry, the soviets joined ww2 as well

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

Yep, and beat the Nazis.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If by "joined WW2", do you mean "got refused from any military alliances with England, France and Poland despite a decade of trying in an attempt to unify Europe against Hitler"? Or do you mean "getting invaded by the Nazis and losing 25+mn people in the process of eliminating Nazism from Europe"?

[–] bi_tux@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean invading poland side by side with the nazis, they weren't interested in getting rid of the nazis, why do you think they had a nap?

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

invading poland side by side with the nazis

Again, literal Nazi revisionism. The invasion of Poland was mostly a peaceful process, and the only aim was to establish pro-communist forces in the area that would ensure Poland would join the USSR against the Nazis when the Nazis attacked. The same was attempted in Finland, and what do you know, Finland actually did join the Nazis during the Continuation War. And what do you know, the USSR retreated its troops from Poland after WW2.

Poland could have entered a military alliance with the USSR for the former 10 years, Stalin went as far as offering to send ONE MILLION soldiers, together with aviation and artillery, to military allies if France, England and Poland joined in a military alliance against the Nazis. But I guess they would rather see the Nazis massacre the communists first. That strategy didn't work out as planned now, did it?

They didn't want to get rid of the Nazis

This is incredibly ahistorical revisionism. The USSR prepared for the war against Nazi Germany for many years before it started. In the second half of the 1930s, seeing the Nazi rising to power (Nazis being overt enemies of Communism, as proven by what they did to Communists and to Unions in their controlled territories), they ramped up the weapon production and their military industry, and I'll say it again in case it didn't register: they spent the entire 30s seeking out military alliances with France, England and Poland against the Nazis. They offered military help to Czechoslovakia in 1938 during the Munich agreements in which Sudetenland was given to the Nazis.

Why do you think they had a NAP?

They had a non-aggression pact because Germany was an established industrial power for 100+ years at that point, while the USSR had had 19 years from 1921 after the Russian Civil War and WW1 to rebuild the country and to industrialise. They desperately needed every year they could get to reduce the industrial gap between them and the Nazis, as proven by the immense human cost to the USSR in the war against Nazis.

The Soviets literally saved Eastern Europe from an even worse fate, at immense cost of human lives (25+ million human lives lost in the USSR to Nazism), god knows how many millions more of Slavs (and other groups like Jews and Roma) the Nazis would have genocided if it hadn't been for the Soviets. Have some respect before spewing anti-communist, nazi propaganda here, please.

[–] AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

invading poland side by side with the nazis

This would actually be a more accurate description of the Slovak Republic’s contribution to the Fascist invasion of Poland, though it is very rare to see anticommunists mention that even in passing. I wonder why. (Presumably they’d say that it is unimportant or uninteresting, of which—as I showed in my thread—it is neither.)

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He already said capitalists, state capitalism is still capitalism, no matter if you call it communism.

[–] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Calling something state capitalist when capitalism heavily relies on the state by default shows you need to hit the books on how capitalism actually functions.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Calling something state capitalist when capitalism heavily relies on the state by default

I have no idea what you are trying to say with this, but perhaps you should look things up before pompously trying to diss people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Perhaps you should read theory. The USSR was State Capitalist with respect to the NEP, but was Socialist for its entire existence

People's theory is just fine. The problem for you is that they kept reading theory that was written after thr 1970s.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can only read 2 pages from what you linked, and am not paying 40 dollars to read the rest, certainly not when they already display a gross oversimplification and anti-Marxist definition of Capitalism (critically leaving out competition, Capital accumulation, and so forth), and therefore take a vulgar revisionist stance. There's no analysis of class dynamics, just an over-reliance on the presense of Wage Labor.

Please read theory, I can make recommendations for the basics if you'd like.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The USSR was Socialist, what on Earth are you talking about?

load more comments (5 replies)