Illiterate newfag here

How was Stalin's 'Communism' different from Hitlers Fascism?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Aschberg
northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm
greanvillepost.com/2015/05/23/left-anticommunism-the-unkindest-cut/
youtube.com/watch?v=2s_LFTqA-ok
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class
britannica.com/topic/social-class
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag.
hrono.ru/statii/2001/zemskov.php
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Read the intro to this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Then read this:
monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
You're welcome

To answer your question, Fascism was class-collaborationist capitalism where the state cooperated with big capitalist firms, literally corporatism (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism). "Stalin's Communism" was a heavily nationalised economy where capital was centralised in the state.
And no, Communism isn't the government owning everything and the nazis weren't socialists.

In Stalin's communism you had to enjoy your punishment.

the size of that brain image checks out

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Aschberg

yes, clearly the same thing as wealthy business owners controlling the state

They were similar and different in a variety of very obvious ways. The supposedly primary element they have in common is their "totalitarianism" which is an incoherent concept used as a smokescreen for Western imperialist powers use to hide their genocide campaigns they conduct every decade or so.

The soviet union literally cooperated with bankers.

getting money from somebody doesn't mean you follow their every policy

northstarcompass.org/nsc9912/lies.htm
greanvillepost.com/2015/05/23/left-anticommunism-the-unkindest-cut/
Read these

lel. What the fuck

How about you actually read what we link you?

Except when you're Hitler ofcourse.

There we have it, sectors of the economy of the soviet union were managed by government controlled organisations; meaning they were L-I-T-T-E-R-A-L-L-Y fascist.

>government- or privately controlled organizations
You can't even read a single line properly? Holla Forumstards really are brainlets

Bro fascism isn't when the government does stuff in the economy. That'll be true no matter how many times libertarians say the opposite.

Is this really such a difficult word for you, are you aware that it doesn't mean the same as and.

But wikipedia says it is, look here

And you are aware that in the very next line it explicitly talks about class collaboration. At least pretend to read the things we give you before sperging out. Private corporations ran the show in Nazi Germany, which you would know if you'd read any history. But of course, you can't even read a single wikipedia article, so I may have set my expectations a little to high. I forget that Holla Forumsacks are developmentally challenged

Like how Lenin collaborated with the banker class in his dealings with Olof Aschberg.
They didn't, Hitler did, the nazi party did, them having support from industrialists doesn't mean that said industrialists or private corporations as a whole ran Germany.
I read the article like you do, from a different perspective.

I like how Holla Forumstards are simultaneously saying that the commies murdered all these poor innocent capitalists and simultaneously were cooperating with them. The bolsheviks were supported by foreign powers in some periods and were violently opposed in others.
Also bankers aren't a class. They are part of the capitalist class
And the party had extremely close ties to German capital. The economy wasn't run by state-owned enterprises, it was run by corporations, who did government contracts. The economy in "Stalin's Communism" was completely nationalised, and capitalists were killed. Fascism is founded on the idea of class collaboration between workers and capitalists, that they can serve a common interest under the guidance of a supreme state. Communism is built on class conflict, the classes are inherently opposed and the workers must overthrow the capitalists. I'm just explaining to you the difference. It's not my fault you're retarded
A shit perspective, considering your foundational knowledge amounts to Holla Forums memes. Meanwhile we have given you several links that might give you a less retarded opinion on things that you obviously haven't read. You're doing a really shitty job of pretending to be a newfag who just wants to learn about communism.

If you are truly interested in learning, this question will not get you good answers. The issue is that Holla Forums is divided on the U.S.S.R, along with everyone else who knows about it but hasn't ascended to the correct viewpoint.
If you want to learn, you're going to have to read. You can ask for people to just talk to you about Socialism/socialist policies but you could possibly get shitty answers. I would read The Communist Manifesto, but from there I don't know what to recommend. I read Wage Labor and Capital. You might want to read the Critique of The Gotha Programme. (Haven't finished it personally.) State and Revolution is nice, but you will almost certainly not be swayed by it. It is more logical socialist policy than anything else. However, I may be biased as I wouldn't notice objectionable arguments like you would, as I already agree with many of the points raised in these books. I wish I was smarter so I could recommend you books in a more logical pattern.

Also bankers aren't a class. They are part of the capitalist class
It's almost like grounding ideological assessment in nitpicked linguistic prescriptivism isn't the best way to go.

Also, capitalists aren't a class.
Fascism is not founded on the idea of class collaboration, it does not have the marxist conception of class in the first place. Fascism isn't founded upon anything in particular. The nazi party having close ties to captains of industry does not mean that they "ran the show", quite the opposite, it means they can't afford to be politically incorrect.
Pointing to a line in a dictionary or wikipedia article and assessing an ideology based purely on that is indeed a shit perspective.

It wasn't different in the sense that both had huge governments that intervened when things they didn't like started happening by business owners. The communists just didn't like a whole lot more stuff, so they were always interfering.

Oh boy. It is this argument again. The "big government bad" argument derives from Cold War propaganda that was pushed by the CIA through the media. It is public knowledge that the CIA pushed this kind of narrative through the media.

The false narrative suggests that a "big government" is equal to totalitarianism and that socialism must be inherently totalitarian as the result of "muh big government." This argument is really based on the warped notion that left is big government, right is small government. Ideology does not work this way. Check out the political compass.

correct, you're pretty close to making an intellectual post ther-
user…

No, it derives from the survivors of communism who had to work through forced labour camps- Oh, I mean 'corrective labour' camps while also living under the flag that is supposed to help the working class and avoid exploitation of labour (while taking slaves and building walls to keep them in).
When you disallow human rights and use force to limit them, you have to use central authority to do it because it's the best way. When you redefine worker's rights in your ideology to encompass the limitation or outright destruction of private property rights, then you have to use force to get to your goal. Every time you have freedom where nobody says "you can't do that", hierarchies are created and the inequalities between people are observed. When you say "you can't do that", your speech without force is just an opinion, which is what was realized (hence, force was used).

First, kulaks deserved it.
Second,
Legit none of us want to disallow "human rights" either because we like being able to criticize the government or that "rights" don't exist in the first place.

For what? Does the middle class deserve to be put in "corrective camps" because of your ideology? Why do you support the persecution of millions and millions simply because they have more and act in their interests?
Only for groups you like, right? So, selective rights based on your ideologies.

Grain hoarding and sabotage.
No, I like to be able to criticize the government without being prosecuted.

*Fixed*
No, I like to be able to criticize the government without being prosecuted and I don't think anyone should be arrested for doing so.

...

Stalin's communism was decidedly atheist which means that human follies (like LARPers pretending they could manage a real economy) were covered up or rationalized.

youtube.com/watch?v=2s_LFTqA-ok
Zizek - Differences between Nazism and Stalinism

I ain't fluent in newfag, but I'll try to translate the workings of Stalinism the best I can for you…

Hiter let certain men own companies, farms and factories if he and his mates part of the state liked them, but if Stalin so much as suspected you were making a living off other people's labour or lining your pockets by creating artificial scarcity by hording grain like kulaks you'd get an all expenses paid trip to a "rehabilitation camp" via The Trans-Siberian Railroad.

TL;DR: Private property and profit-driven business was a thing in Nazi Germany, but not in The Soviet Union.

Not that I disagree but got any sources? They are useful in threads like this.

Read this

They hoarded their grain when the government said "I am going to steal it from you" or "reacquire" something they never owned to begin with. If I come up to your house and tell you to give me the computer you're typing on because most people globally don't have computers, and you destroy your computer to defy me, you are not to blame because more people don't have computers. This is blaming the victim of the oppression for the act they never initiated.
Your ideas have never been proven to work without a government on a national scale. You can't have the bastardization of an entire class of people, like you said "kulaks deserved it", without a state to do it for you. Or you can just have a huge state but not call it one.

Maybe in the third world… hmm I wonder how they treat free trade and freedom of association…

Yeah, they weren't death camps, they were just forced labour camps for political dissidents deemed counter-revolutionary.
Also

Well I think the point of the infographic is to show how the number of people who died and the correlating population growth shows how it is statistically impossible to occur.

It was for all criminals.

This action was irrational and caused a famine to be worse. Gulag deserved.

The point was that 60 million couldn't have been the number. Yes, people died, but not as many as is said.

The middle class doesn't exist. Either you own the means or don't.

Including all criminals. Labour camps are not a soviet only thing though.

No, the assertion is that a loss of life is impossible when there is a net gain or population growth. It literally makes up a statistic of 60 million (even though the true death toll can't be known until all state documents are released, or those that have been destroyed are revealed), appeals to improbability, then says that people couldn't die in the time period. Using the image's own logic, the positive population growth can also be used to disprove the deaths during the world wars. China's population was also a net gain, the population growth was also positive: doesn't mean that loss of life cannot occur.

I guess the press printing mean stories about the government makes them criminals now. That's the beauty of law: you can redefine it at your will.

The action was expected. Answer the hypothetical I raised: if I show up and tell you to give me the computer or phone you're using to connect to the internet because lots of other people, globally, cannot access the internet and we need to make sure they get their "fair" share, your destruction of the phone or computer is an example of resistance to my tyranny. It is only expected. If you try and rape a woman and she kills herself to resist your crime, you are to blame for causing her to kill herself. The kulaks weren't going to randomly destroy their crops or livestock if the government didn't try to steal it from them.
I agree.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class
Does in the US, and in other nations like Canada, Australia, France, the UK, etc.
False dichotomy. That's not what a class means.
>britannica.com/topic/social-class
The middle class qualifies as a class by the literary definition.
Sorry, I don't believe in immoral class-based persecution of peasants. That's just my moral framework, yours can differ.
I agree. Doesn't make theirs any less horrendous. Class-based persecution is still immoral according to my moral framework.

...

A computer is very different to food. You need food no matter what. Computers you don't need as such but they're useful to have.
Anyway
If I had loads of computers or the means to produce many computers then I would happily give away those computers. If you came to me and said "gimme gimmie" then I wouldn't destroy my computer, that's fucking retarded. I would say "No, go ask someone who has many computers or has the means to produce many computers." If you kept trying to take my computer I would call the police and ask them to stop you.
I think the term you're looking for might be labour aristocracy. This is a leftist board so the marxist idea of class is generally the only one used. Socioeconomic class is ambiguous and can change in relation to a region whereas the marxist idea of class is the same no matter where one is situated.
Also semantics battle.
Then you must agree that using gulags as a main point in arguing against the SU is pointless?

No, I'm sure there were criminals. If you read my post, you'd see the context includes counter-revolutionaries. Sorry, I find it hypocritical of revolutionaries who create a state to then ban revolutionaries, or whoever decides to speak negatively about them. I don't believe there was freedom of the press, there wasn't much to do with freedom of speech if you were critical of state policies.
Do you have a citation for that? Like, a prison sampling to see that the majority were criminals like rapists or thieves?
The entry on Wikipedia makes the same claim I am, but I can't find anything that says that the majority were 'ordinary criminals': en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag. There were political prisoners interned at the camps, too. A nation that has freedom of speech and democracy doesn't have political prisoners.

It assassinates them instead lol

Such as?

hrono.ru/statii/2001/zemskov.php

Sorry, I don't support putting any percentage of people in jail for thought crimes or "counter-revolutionary" activity, especially if my regime gained power BY revolting against authority. It is a grand hypocrisy and a denial of human rights.
Your own source also shows that, in the year of 1942-1943, which seems to have the greatest black bar, close to a third of a million people were killed in the gulags (if you count 1942 as around 200k and 1943 as around 150k). That's figure D.
Not to mention, in table 7, there are some other startling offences that are penalized that just reek of immoral justification. "Socially harmful", "economic crimes", "theft/crimes against property" (interestingly, theft of "public property", which is ironic coming from the state who steals private property, dropped from 18.3 in 1934 and 14.2 in 1936 to 1.9 in 1940: seems like the people started to get the message). These kinds of 'crimes' don't exist in civilized societies that respect freedom of speech or basic human rights.