To think there are a lot of people out there who have no grasp of WW2 history

[Stripyseagulls]

My grandfather fought in WW2 and I have visited the Normandy sites & it’s extraordinary how moving they are.

Today on Facebook/Twitter I have seen loads of really disturbing posts saying stuff like ‘our war hero’s didn’t fight world war 2 to live in a country full of muslim/ foreigners’ etc. Really really disturbing and horrible.

Aibu to think people don’t understand history and that the war was fought to defeat facism and these kinds of beliefs. Hitler didn’t start off gassing people- it was a long propaganda campaign against religious and ethnic groups that ended up with the holocaust.

Aibu to be disturbed by the lack of understanding of why the war was fought and what it was fought against. I find some of the attitudes in the UK today so troubling.

Simplistic, and flawed, argument

As simplistic and flawed as arguing that socialism and communism are two separate things?

Not a chance.

You would be hard pressed to actually define Russian policies under Stalin as socialist, in fact much of his policies were diametrically opposed to those of socialism.

Still a flawed argument about the name though, so I doubt you'd be able to handle a discussion on Stalinism.

As simplistic and flawed as arguing that socialism and communism are two separate things?

Not a chance.

www.dictionary.com/e/socialism-democracy/

Similarities maybe, but they really are two separate things. You can't compare the Socialist governments we've had in the UK with Stalin's regime in the USSR.

Similarities maybe, but they really are two separate things. You can't compare the Socialist governments we've had in the UK with Stalin's regime in the USSR

Does socialism only exist in some sort of quintessentially British form?

You can argue that a socialist isn't a communist, but you're going to have a tough time arguing that a communist isn't a socialist.

But you can accurately argue that Stalin's Russia didn't follow communist or socialist policies.

Go on then. Argue how Stalinism somehow manages to occupy a political space untouched by either communist or socialist ideology.

Stalinism was about stalin retaining power. His policies, such as the removal of trade union powers, strikers facing the death penalty, the oppression of the workforce by the state, and many other points demonstrate this.

I'm really surprised to see people saying they weren't taught about the wars at school. I was born in 1972, went to school in the 70s/80s, we did it all the time, not just once but over and over. Loads of times. From Primary school right through to GCSE.

I'm surprised too. Although this just may mean that I am very old.

Stalinism was about stalin retaining power. His policies, such as the removal of trade union powers, strikers facing the death penalty, the oppression of the workforce by the state, and many other points demonstrate this

Fuck me. And you accused my arguments of lacking depth? The methods used to maintain power don't deprive Stalin's political ideology of its fundamental nature.
So, persuade me again how Stalin's political ideology, drawn directly as it was from the tenets of Marxist-Leninism, and which articulated the doctrine of 'Socialism in one Country', has nothing to do with either communism or socialism?Particularly when every notable historian or biographer of Stalin (Service, Radzinsky, Kotkin, Volkogonov) has stated in clear cut terms that Stalinist ideology was a logical extension of Leninism's violent autocratic totalitarianism? Or are you now going to tell me that Lenin wasn't actually a communist?

Stalinism was different to the doctrine of Marx, and had significant differences ftom the doctrines of Lenin and Trotsky. Chonsky writes well on the subject as do others.

And yes your "the clue is in the name" point was ridiculously poor, and I demonstrated why.

Blimey, this is getting like a Monty Python sketch (“ Popular Front of Judea”), or something that Wolfie Smith would say.

Stalinism was different to the doctrine of Marx, and had significant differences ftom the doctrines of Lenin and Trotsky

Go on on then. What were these differences? How do they, in and of themselves, cause Stalinism to be an entirely separate thing from either socialism or communism. Because as far as i can tell both of the latter easily have the leeway in their various manifestations to accommodate the essential political and economic worldview espoused by Stalin.

Academics would agree.

Gooding J. (2002) Stalin’s Socialism, 1929–53. In: Socialism in Russia. Palgrave Macmillan, London

Animal Farm is helpful in regard to Russia or Dr Zhivago possibly

The thinking is quite simple, there is an overall term for a political doctrine called socialism, that comprises many aspects, and in the particular case of the USSR, went from Basic Marxism, to Leninism, Was challenged by Trotsky to go down his particular path, and Stalin invented the term Marxist- Leninist to appease people who were on the verge of splitting the “cause” ( in much the same way as our friends in Judea), and then had Trotsky first exiled and then assassinated, and then went on to evolve his own quite simple doctrine, which was to eliminate all opposition, and make sure he stayed as dictator for, well, as far as he was concerned, ever. This he achieved.
In my opinion, as soon as you start killing the opposition, and vast numbers of your own population, you can call it anything you want, but it certainly isn’t “Socialism”.

Go on on then. What were these differences?

Well, obviously, as you have already stated, the clue is in the name. If they were all the same why would we need four distinct terms like “Marxism”, “Leninism”, “Trotskyism” and “Stalinism” ( or 5 terms if you count “Marxist-Leninism”. )

Maybe they could come up with a term that covers all these “isms” if they are all the same?

I would suggest “Communism” but that becomes such a catch-all phrase, and becomes somewhat meaningless, unless it is preceded by some sort of qualifier, like naming it after the person who first came up with the concept - oh, wait a minute...

God, what meaningless gibberish.

Stalinism: clearly derived from communist theory.

Communism: clearly contains aspects of socialist theory.

If you're going to make the argument that it has nothing to do with genuine socialism then you have to accept that 'disaster' capitalism has nothing to do with genuine capitalism.

Except Stalinism paid lip service to socialism but actually did the opposite, state capitalist rather than communist.

The critiques of your argument are not gibberish, and plenty of other academics would agree, your appeal to authority is another fallacy.

Disaster capitalism comes out of the Chicago School of economics and is used to implement the most neo liberal of economic policies.

It is to do with capitalism.

God, what meaningless gibberish.
No more gibberish than your feeble “the clue is in the name”.

And if it’s such gibberish why can’t you counter the simple fact that there are all this “isms” named after the various characters that “invented” the concepts.

I don’t think anyone has said that Stalin was not a communist or a socialist, but these are just cover all phrases that cover so many nuances.

It could be argued that Mao Tse Tung and Tony Blair we’re both “Socialists”, but their ideologies were light years apart, so much to render the term useless.
It’s hardly a difficult concept, and I am a bit confused why you seem to have so much trouble understanding it.