Pavel Stroilov

[SapereAude]

http://bigjournalism.com/mwalsh/2010/05/15/must-read-of-the-day-a-hidden-history-of-evil/

An interesting article posing the question:

Communism has killed millions, why has it not been ostracised in the same manner as Nazism?

[Xall]

I'm from a former socialist country and from what I've been informed about and read at university there are many issues regarding the relative unscathed reputation of communism, even after the fall of the Soviet Union and the revealing of atrocious crimes perpetrated by that regime.

Firstly, Western nations have not ever experienced communism first-hand and the details of acts in history becomes easily selective (the so called politics of memory and amnesia). Therefore, it is easy for them to support theoretically a system of which faults they cannot be convinced but in its destructive practice.

Secondly, most such supporters contend that communism is a good idea and only that it has been applied bad, by such individuals as Stalin, and thus became perverted; they still claim that the model is theoretically good and the fault lies in its misuse and human lust for power.

Thirdly, which I consider most important from a historical perspective, is that communist/socialist parties have played a major role in Western countries (see Italy and France, for instance) in the fight against Nazism, and the legitimacy is established by acts against the Nazis during the Second World War and the subsequent rebuilding effort, in which they participated greatly; hence, bereft of the actual practice of communism, they were free to construct themselves into the democratic processes of said countries.

I personally abhor these individuals that speak of utopias (or should I say dystopias?) devoid of even the most basic respect for human rights and dignity and am rather looking with despondency upon the wretched remains of the countries that were under communism and now are struggling for real rights and liberties...sadly, the international media is always over-optimistic about such things as progress.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Xall

[prescient]

An interesting question indeed.

In the context of the two states which practiced these ideologies in the past century, both discarded God based theologies in favor of the person and installed the head of state as the deity on earth.

Both systems were essentially fascistic.

Both established the state as the church.

Both espoused anti-capitalist philosophies.

Both practiced systematic murder of identified enemy groups based on a system of camps employed to collect these perceived enemies and then dispose of them accordingly.

Oddly, in the case of communism, their system started before the Nazis and succeeded the Nazis.

I think part of the answer of why the Soviets were idealized lies in that the Soviet style fascism sought to address class distinctions as did socialists in the U.S. had striven to do prior to the 1917 revolution. They spoke in a common language. The communists sought to address the differences by embarking on a campaign against the middle and upper classes. This was a strategy which used tactics the socialists in the west either admired or in extreme cases ignored preferring to focus on the end goal. Socialists in the west could identify with targeting the bourgeois as a catchall net capturing the middle and upper classes who had somehow prospered at the expense of the lower class. The idea of attacking an ethnic group is anathema to western thought, at least in the sense of organized political movements anyway. This does not explain such groups as the Ku Klux Klan. Although, the KKK did have a tangential relationship with socialists and democrats early in the 20th century.

The national socialists of Germany addressed disparities in classes in their rhetoric but for some reason targeted ethnic groups rather than an entire class. Specifically the Jews. Jews as an ethic group occupied all strata of society. While the socialists in the Soviet Union confiscated wealth in the name of the state and ran enterprises as state functions, the national socialists rather embraced capitalism and made it an extension of the state. The national socialists allowed commerce to operate separately but under the watchful eye of the state. Both systems tolerated capitalism in some manner but it was the soviet style system which at its outset punished capitalists as the manifestations of social evil the same way those sympathetic socialists in the U.S. saw commerce.

Perhaps those socialists in the west were willing to overlook, even condone, the level of murder committed by Russian socialists because both held compatible anti-capitalist, political outlooks. But, the socialists in the U.S. could not condone the national socialists in Germany because they committed mass murder in conjunction with state capitalism.

[SapereAude]

Perhaps those socialists in the west were willing to overlook, even condone, the level of murder committed by Russian socialists because both held compatible anti-capitalist, political outlooks. But, the socialists in the U.S. could not condone the national socialists in Germany because they committed mass murder in conjunction with state capitalism.

That is a very interesting and insightful theory.

If correct it would explain a much broader range of issues than just the one in this topic.

[Cherring109]

Watch- The Soviet Story

http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/28771192

WARNING- I don't know if this site has permission to use this film so watch at your own risk. But in this case i think the subject is too important to at least let people know about this work.

http://www.sovietstory.com/ This is the link to the official website.