A stalinist comic about freedom of the press. Do you have one about the futility of mustaches, too?
So this was paid for and published by Commintern, The Communist International, also known as the Third International which operated from 1919 to 1943. This was published in the 1930s while Joseph Stalin was in charge.
The fact that some people would post this unironically when the person who sent this message was notorious for the iron-fucking-curtain is beyond stupid.
OP is a tankie, and an exceptionally uneducated one at that.
Yeah lemmy.ml is leaking again
It’s 2025 today. The messsge is the same but with a different context.
Maybe instead of leaning on the message of fascists you could express your concerns in some other way. One that doesn’t degrade yourself in the process. Like making your own comics with your own words.
The communists werent fascist, they were communist.
I didn’t think I’d need to say that but here we are.
The 1930s USSR was squarely under the rule of Joseph Stalin, a brutal dictator. It was a time of mass starvation and persecution.
Authoritarian is not fascism. It is a component, but communism and fascism are not even close to synonymous.
There was one famine from mismanagement, and Stalin wasn’t a great guy but this shit is really overblown.
The USSR was a fascism because it was a central dictatorship with violent tendencies. The actual definition of the term.
That’s not the definition of the term, by any ones analysis. The simplest, original definition is that fascism is state and corporate power combined. Like the US has been for half a century.
Google is free dude.
Authoritarian is the word you’re looking for, not fascist.
I’m using the definition of fascism as it relates to dictator advocacy. I know that confuses a lot of people who associate socialism with left and fascism with right, but it is proper use of the term.
The etymology is rooted in Italian authoritarianism from root words meaning a political gathering of men.
Who has defined fascism as such? How do the practices of Stalinism root in Italian authoritarianism?
Defining fascism as any form of authoritarianism broadens the term so much as to render it useless.
It’s useful to be able to talk about the ways in which the ideologies which governed Franco’s Spain and Mussolini’s Italy are more similar to each other than say, something like the DPRK under Juche. If we want to refer to something as authoritarian, we already have the word authoritarian.
Source?
Whose definition of fascism are you using? Eco, Griffin? Which elements of fascism did the Soviet state exhibit?
Of Eco’s traits, I only see disagreement being treason. Nothing else particularly matches the goals or praxis of the Soviets. I’m not pro Stalin, but he wasn’t a “fascist.”
Stalin’s offices produced this image. To use this image is to align yourself with Joseph Stalin.
You’re like the 4th person to randomly show up asking questions about the definition of fascism in the last 10 minutes, can you fucking tankies be any more obvious?
What on earth makes me a Tankie? I’m not a Stalinist. I’m pretty anti-Stalin even - I think the doctors probably did let him die and that was a great thing. I just think words mean things.
Let’s go with Eco, because it’s been fifteen years since I read Griffin. And I’ll pull the wiki summaries for quickness.
“The cult of tradition”, characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
Not at all characteristic of the Stalin regime. Rejection of tradition - rejection of Eastern Orthodox religion, traditional serf structure.
“The rejection of modernism”, which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
Also not accurate - Marxist-Stalinist thought saw time and modernism as progress.
“The cult of action for action’s sake”, which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
Also just doesn’t quite fit. Action does have purpose, and isn’t motivated by the Freudian death drive in quite the same way.
“Disagreement is treason” – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
This one is certainly true, the gulags undoubtedly qualify.
“Fear of difference”, which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
Decidedly untrue. Stalin really loved showcasing different ethnic minority traditions. He was certainly antisemitic, but I’ve read too many accounts about Georgian dancing troops and linguistic revival to see this as accurate. Edit: I will be fair and bring up ethnic deportations and genocide which happened. But it’s not quite fascistic ethnic cleansing. There’s a difference in the way it’s presented to the public, in its motivations. It’s less the heroic struggle against Strangers, but more connected to historical conflicts. Evil and wrong, but not a fascistic “project.”
“Appeal to a frustrated middle class”, fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
No, the Bolsheviks explicitly appealed to a lower class.
“Obsession with a plot” and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. Eco also cites Pat Robertson’s book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
This one counts, at least in the later years.
Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”. On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
No, propaganda tended to portray the battle against capitalism as being easy to win with solidarity.
“Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy” because “life is permanent warfare” – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
You don’t need perpetual war with the kulaks.
“Contempt for the weak”, which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force
Entirely incongruous with Soviet propaganda.
“Everybody is educated to become a hero”, which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, “[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.”
No, they wanted engineers to build factories. Stakhanov is not consistent with the imagery of a fascist hero.
“Machismo”, which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold “both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality”.
Soviet state under Stalin was one of the first to decriminalize homosexuality. Iirc Stalin did a take backsie later. More women were doctors than men. (We seldom talk about women in the movement - lots of pushes for temperance, it was the woman who wanted bread for their children along with the men of the Potemkin right?)
“Selective populism” – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he alone dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of “no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people”.
Also goes against the whole idea of “we want democratic control over our factories.”
“Newspeak” – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
I’d concede this element as present.
Again, I am not pro Stalin. I am not a tankie.
Stalin was an authoritarian leader (and terrible! bad! not good!), but his ideology lacked the characteristics that make an ideology fascist.
Maybe you sound like a fascist telling me what to say or think and you should eat shit.
lol
Ad hominem attack - “this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself”
Don’t you know that Hitler was against the ad hominem, I can’t take serious advice from someone who sides with Hitler
/godwin
[Response copied and pasted from a crosspost that copied and pasted the comment this is in response to]
My current opinion is, a message can be good or bad regardless of the source. That can have exception when there’s hidden implication of support for evil deeds (ex. all lives matter). In this case, I can recognize the truth in this message that still resonates today and don’t see the implication of support for the entirety of Stalin’s actions. Also, bringing up the iron curtain is actual pretty ironic, given that was about isolationism and this comic is (at least on the surface) anti-isolationist.
My current opinion is, don’t align yourself with dictators and you won’t get called out for promoting authoritarian hellscapes.
Lol that’s actually a bad opinion. You absolutely will get called out for promoting authoritarian hellscapes by supporting neo-liberal politicians who are not dictators. You may not agree with the call out, but it will still happen.
Not only are you completely wrong about what fascism is, you are arguing that since the Comintern, an international committee, published a political cartoon, that Stalin personally made and published it single-handedly. This is stupid, there is no way that Stalin could personally run around and do everything the government did in the Soviet Union. That would be a practically superhuman feat.
On the other hand, could you also argue that dismissing something out of hand because the person who made it worked for a publication that aligned itself with a philosophy that was being used by a country that was being led by a bad man, well, kind of stupid too?
But tell us how you feel about Tesla owners…
Tesla was a great company that, as Musk’s direct involvement grows, gets worse and worse by the moment. The Cybertruck is basically his version of “The Homer” - a car designed by someone who knows nothing about cars.
I have nothing against Tesla owners - people are allowed to like what they like :)
No.
This is malfeasance etched into paper. The intent was by people who wished us harm.
Imagine if you started quoting a leader of the KKK because even though hes a hateful violent asshole maybe some cherrypicked quotes seemed innocent. Do you think you would be well recieved?
But that isn’t the same thing at all. These are not Stalin’s words.
If you buy into the McCarthyism “Red Scare” nonsense, then fine, but remember that the only lives McCarthy ruined were those of Americans, and with one possible exception*, all of whom were innocent of any actual wrongdoing.
*Alger Hiss maintained his innocence to his death, and the evidence against him is dubious at best.
If these words weren’t condoned by Stalin and his goons the writers would have been flogged, tied to a post, and shot if they were lucky. These words and this drawing were sketched by the will of his administration.
Brother, capitalists are using the power that capitalism gave them to destroy the planet, public institutions, and democracy around the global and you are still repeating the pro-capitalist / anti-communist Nazi lies from 80 years ago???
The USSR was nonstop greed and corruption, sabre-rattling with Nuclear Weapons until it imploded and gave way to its current capitalist form, fuck off.
Now Russia is nonstop greed and corruption, sabre-rattling with Nuclear Weapons under capitalism, so completely different!
Indeed, their words were empty if not for their malice.
Man’s freedom is lacking if somebody else controls what he needs, for need may result in man’s enslavement of man.
— Muammar Gaddafi
This counterrevolutionary talk will get you sent to gulag.
And revolutionary talk will get you sent to prison to be slave labor for a private prison industry.
Thank you for the context. The desperation about current (fascist) extreme-right politics really makes some people swing so hard towards the left they just end up with another flavour of fascism.
(I know the horseshoe theory is garbage, please don’t @ me about it)
The best propaganda is the truth. The capitalist press was and is actively lying to you, and when they do tell a truth that goes against capital interests they get punished for it.
That the Soviets were doing the same thing is just another example of why only anarchists are cool and smart 😎
Ima just leave this here… WaPo OpEd to publish OEd that agree with Bezos
Ah you’re right, we should all get together and protest this by agreeing with Hitler or something. /sarcasm
Last time I checked the history books, it was the Soviet Union under Stalin that rolled into Berlin. You can’t even see your own cognitive dissonance over calling the person that literally fought Hitler, Hitler? Plus, you’ve done nothing to address the fact that the cartoon you posted is literally true and posted on the same front pages of Lemmy? You’ve clearly been subjected to some wild capitalist bullshit. My condolences.
Reminds me of this quoted exchange I read in Stalin’s biography recently. Situation is Stalin being increasingly irritated with Molotov, his long-time comrade and lashing out at a meeting, in 1941 (before the war)
Stalin did not conceal his disapproval of Molotov. He very impatiently listened to Molotov’s rather prolix responses to comments from members of the Bureau.… It seemed as if Stalin was attacking Molotov as an adversary and that he was doing so from a position of strength.… Molotov’s breathing began to quicken, and at times he would let out a deep sigh. He fidgeted on his stool and murmured something to himself. By the end he could take it no longer:
“Easier said than done,” Molotov pronounced in a low but cutting voice. Stalin picked up [Molotov’s] words.
“It has long been well-known,” said Stalin, “that the person who is afraid of criticism is a coward.”
Molotov winced, but kept quiet—the other members of the Politburo sat silently, burying their noses in the papers.… At this meeting I was again convinced of the power and greatness of Stalin. Stalin’s companions feared him like the devil. They would agree with him on practically anything
I’m willing to bet everyone in that meeting almost drowned in the irony but also deathly afraid to say anything
And everyone believed the propaganda about tiktok “needing” the hostile take over.
“Public opinion exists only where there are no ideas.”- Oscar Wilde.
I think public opinion is overrated. Too many fools in the public. Just look at MAGA idiots in US.
I believe public opinion is fairly left leaning. Just looks how popular Bernie and AOC are. It’s just that corporate media discourse is very good at suppressing left wing views.
You can describe socialist and communist policies and people generally love them. You just can’t use those thought terminating trigger words.
That comes from dishonest politicians and media, who twist things for their benefit. They frame certain acts like they are coming for your 2 chickens, when in reality, they are coming for a rich fucks’ 100000 chickens. Such people have a vested interest in fooling the people with 2 chickens. Hence, they campaign by equating such measures with ‘scary’ words like ‘communism’. Propaganda works. These kinds of tricks are bread and butter of advertising industry. So why not politicians and media?
Describing it is one thing.
Actually implementing it is another.
there is technique and whole ideologies and entire categories of political theory in the left all literally dedicated to taking control off oligarchs and implementing it with varying levels of irl success.
there is more to the left of liberals and they address a bunch of these things.
In Nordic countries, they do have something along the line. Although it ended up being democratic socialism, which is left-center instead of far-left authoritarian.
The Nordics aren’t Socialist in any capacity, heavy industry and large firms are squarely in the Private Sector, and they earn the bulk of their income from acting essentially as a landlord in country form, from predatory IMF loans.
Moreover, all Socialism is democratic in some form, the idea that there is a niche of Socialism that alone is Democratic is a misnomer. Democratic Socialism is better described as Reformist Socialism.
nordic countries exploit countries like mine for our natural resources and human capital in a brutal way. their capitalism just succeeds in neatly hiding away the suffering abroad. their government is not leftist, and that model is not sustainable for everyone to adopt.
But I have 2 chickens
they have a couple of hundred of thousands of them in each of their facilities
That’s our chicken, comrade.
What I mean is taking the opinion of the public seriously. I mean, people believe in a lot of weird things and that includes me. As an example, lot of people are anti-vaxxers, that doesn’t actually make vaccines dangerous. Should their opinion matter? If so, how much?
I think the quote is meant to consider that sometimes we must ignore public opinion and do what is right. But, I agree some nuance could be lost. But sadly, the quote has no context because it is from a list of quotes Oscar Wilde wrote. Maybe, we should supply our own nuance.?
Public opinion has a pretty big influence on who is getting voted into public offices. Ignore at your own peril.
Yes, but that is the problem of politicians. Regular people like you or me can safely ignore public opinion. Because we know how dumb public is.
Politicians are very much our problem.
Only works if you’ve got the “right” politicians in place. Right now there’s a guy in power doing just that in the US and you see what it looks like.
Now show the comic about the other meaning behind “the capitalist press”
…Is it like a sex position? 😕
Could be the finishing move of The Million Dollar Man*?
*approximately 32 Billion Dollar Man with inflation
Oh god, I’d successfully suppressed all memory of this guy. One more brick from my sanity’s Jenga tower…
Sorry 😁
I was thinking more along the scene from Terminator but I like your style
pretty sure there’s plenty of socialism online, I don’t think the capitalists are hiding people from that.
They just spend billions of dollars making sure Joe Rogan is on every from page and in a favorable spot in the algorithm.