He claimed to be one and was supported by the soviet union, as did some other braindead regimes. I don’t doubt it was a red fascism or even tribalism. It’s just concerning that killing off clever people kinda tracks with red-painted authorities.
I don’t doubt it was a red fascism or even tribalism.
As someone who had family in a concentration camp, this is offensive and minimizes the holocaust. Fascists and socialists are not morally equivalent, stop calling socialists red fash.
It’s just concerning that killing off clever people kinda tracks with red-painted authorities.
No, socialists are genuinely in favor of suppressing the bourgeoisie and reactionary elements. If you think “kill smart people” is socialism than it is unsurprising you think Pol Pot was a socialist.
I had family members die in GuLag for no reason. Some of my grand-gramps (supposedly) killed a fucker from the Poverty Comitee who weren’t any better than wagnerites today. I mean, two can play this game at the same time, to guess who had it worse.
Why red faschism is that bad of a name? It’s a veey different stray of ideas but it ultimately leads to the same level of poppulist and corrupt authoritarianism if left unchecked. Because it leaves any principles behind if they are inconvinient. What USSR shown, and what Pol Pot with his junta put onto display.
Almost the only big modern experiments in socialism happened in Makho’s free state and Catalonia. Both were treacherously put down by soviets, with lies in Pravda suggesting the latter weren’t really socialists to begin with. That, coming from a stalinist state in the late 1930s.
I lose any sense of a practical difference when I dig into their story. Yeah, no (vocal) praise for racial identity, unless we don’t feel you jews or you tatars are complicit enough. No (vocal) praise for an idea of a superhuman, unless you take ‘soviet men’ identity replacing your own too seriously or ask about what happened to disabled people after the war, like in Valaam. No (vocal) definition of what genetically-determined classes are, but there’s Gulag, inescapable serfdom in kolkhoz, exclusive shops for internal party apparatus, that is, surprisingly, filled with russians even in republics.
I was trying hard not to argue. I failed.
And no, Hitler wasn’t happy about this monicker. Idk if any public speech of his after coming to power even had this word. He hated everything -socialist and probably wanted to distance himself from it.
How would you prove that? Does Khmer Rogue count as a ‘communist nation’?
International testing orgs.
If you think Pol Pot was a socialist you haven’t looked into the actual policies he implemented. It is like people claiming Hitler was a socialist.
He claimed to be one and was supported by the soviet union, as did some other braindead regimes. I don’t doubt it was a red fascism or even tribalism. It’s just concerning that killing off clever people kinda tracks with red-painted authorities.
And Hitler called himself a national socialist.
As someone who had family in a concentration camp, this is offensive and minimizes the holocaust. Fascists and socialists are not morally equivalent, stop calling socialists red fash.
No, socialists are genuinely in favor of suppressing the bourgeoisie and reactionary elements. If you think “kill smart people” is socialism than it is unsurprising you think Pol Pot was a socialist.
I had family members die in GuLag for no reason. Some of my grand-gramps (supposedly) killed a fucker from the Poverty Comitee who weren’t any better than wagnerites today. I mean, two can play this game at the same time, to guess who had it worse.
Why red faschism is that bad of a name? It’s a veey different stray of ideas but it ultimately leads to the same level of poppulist and corrupt authoritarianism if left unchecked. Because it leaves any principles behind if they are inconvinient. What USSR shown, and what Pol Pot with his junta put onto display.
Almost the only big modern experiments in socialism happened in Makho’s free state and Catalonia. Both were treacherously put down by soviets, with lies in Pravda suggesting the latter weren’t really socialists to begin with. That, coming from a stalinist state in the late 1930s.
I lose any sense of a practical difference when I dig into their story. Yeah, no (vocal) praise for racial identity, unless we don’t feel you jews or you tatars are complicit enough. No (vocal) praise for an idea of a superhuman, unless you take ‘soviet men’ identity replacing your own too seriously or ask about what happened to disabled people after the war, like in Valaam. No (vocal) definition of what genetically-determined classes are, but there’s Gulag, inescapable serfdom in kolkhoz, exclusive shops for internal party apparatus, that is, surprisingly, filled with russians even in republics.
I was trying hard not to argue. I failed.
And no, Hitler wasn’t happy about this monicker. Idk if any public speech of his after coming to power even had this word. He hated everything -socialist and probably wanted to distance himself from it.
Bud you just compared the gulags to the holocaust. Have an ounce of self awareness.