Matvei Bronstein: Theorical physicist. Pioneer of quantum gravity. Arrested, accused of fictional “terroristic” activity and shot in 1938

Lev Shubnikov: Experimental physicist. Accused on false charges. Executed

Adrian Piotrovsky: Russian dramaturge. Accused on false charges of treason. Executed.

Nikolai Bukharin: Leader of the Communist revolution. Member of the Politburo. Falsely accused of treason. Executed.

General Alexander Egorov: Marshal of the Soviet Union. Commander of the Red Army Southern Front. Member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Arrested, accused on false charges, executed.

General Mikhail Tukhachevsky Supreme Marshal of the Soviet Union. Nicknamed the Red Napoleon. Arrested, accused on fake charges. Executed.

Grigory Zinoviev: Chairman of the Communist International Movement. Member of the Soviet Politburo. Accused of treason and executed.

Even the secret police themselves were not safe:

Genrikh Yagoda : Right-hand of Joseph Stalin. Head of the NKD Secret Police. He spied on everyone in Russia and jailed thousands of innocents. Yagoda was arrested and executed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genrikh_Yagoda

Nikolai Yezhov : Appointed head of the NKD Secret Police after the death of Yagoda. Arrested on fake charges, executed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Yezhov

Everybody was absolutely terrified during this period. At least 600 000 people were killed and over 100 000 people were deported to Gulags in Siberia.

Today, Russian schools no longer teach what Joseph Stalin did. Many young russians actually believe that Stalin was a great patriot.

This is part of an effort by Vladimir Putin to rehabilitate him:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/10/vladimir-putin-russia-rehabilitating-stalin-soviet-past

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/05/21/stalin-is-making-a-comeback-in-russia-heres-why-a89155

  • Allero@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    The “political” aspect of communism stems directly from the desire to radically alter the economic system. It is not tied, however, to the particular political order.

    Coming from the same very Wikipedia article you cite on communism:

    Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a libertarian socialist approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers’ self-management, and an authoritarian socialist, vanguardist, or party-driven approach to establish a socialist state, which is expected to wither away.

    So, communism, just as capitalism and socialism, can be combined with all sorts of governance types. It can be authoritarian (and so can be capitalism - look at fascism to see an example), and it can be democratic (early Soviets) or even libertarian (anarcho-communism). You can build a totalitarian communist hellhole, and a totalitarian capitalist one; same in reverse.

    Now, an argument can actually be made that capitalism is inherently undemocratic. As your ability to exercise rights is heavily tied to your wealth (think of regular worker suing a billionaire, or all the lobbying, or corruption scandals involving the wealthiest and the way they slip out of them like nothing ever happened), people can be and commonly are silenced. Moreover, if you have money, nothing stops you from financing the media to translate your message. This way, important political messages are drowned in favor of what the rich want to translate, and certain (rather corrupt) voices are heavily amplified over others.

    By extension, liberalism, even in the most ideal of its forms, is deeply flawed when it comes to a true democracy.

    Finally, most communists (including Marx, since you mention him) realize that the communist society is at least very far off from the current state of affairs. This is why socialism exists as a transitory state, an economic system that grants a lot of benefits of communism (worker’s rights, a social state, socially owned industry) while keeping the monetary incentives in the economy. The absolute majority of communists support this transition and welcome a socialist state.

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      So, communism, just as capitalism and socialism, can be combined with all sorts of governance types.

      While this is true, they’re talking about Stalin & the political system mentioned before

      Colloquially, communism refers to a communist state (also known as a Marxist–Leninist state)

      not any political system. None of the other types of communist governments have existed to scale for a meaningful duration & none have fulfilled their fantastical/mythical promise. They either fail within a few years or persist through authoritarian repression while purporting to strive for a fantasy they may never achieve.

      Now, an argument can actually be made that capitalism is inherently undemocratic.

      Not a political system. Nothing you wrote about it necessarily happens (depends on government), and the rich have been successfully sued & convicted of crimes before.

      liberalism

      Isn’t some deluded speculation. It’s a moral & political philosophy of immediately realizable demands to restrict government authority[1]. Are you arguing against the restriction of government authority & against liberty? That’s a strong argument to reject your political system as illegitimate.

      Unlike the fantasy of a communist society, the demands of liberalism have been achieved before in North America & Europe. It’s why you’re allowed to write everything you have.

      true democracy

      Because liberalism is not democracy, liberal democracy is, and as mentioned:

      Colloquially, democracy refers to liberal democracy, also called Western-style democracy, or substantive democracy

      True democracy was already defined

      [Democracy][democracy] is a political system/government in which political power is vested in the people or the population of a state.

      and demands less.

      This is why socialism exists as a transitory state

      Only to communists: socialists regard it as the goal.

      economic system that grants a lot of benefits of communism (worker’s rights, a social state, socially owned industry)

      Economic systems aren’t political systems, so they don’t have rights, though they may depend on rights (from a political system).

      Moreover, those benefits amount to less than purported in communist states.

      With all their rhetoric on substantive equality, & the time, state ownership, & central planning to achieve it, we’d expect at least the main outcome of economic equality. Yet, measures of economic inequality don’t support that: China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba rate medium on economic inequality. (Only, North Korea with an average height notably shorter than South Korea due to food shortages has low economic inequality.) To the contrary, the “flawed” liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia do better with low economic inequality.

      Despite an ideology opposing the exploitation of workers, Soviet forced labor camps did exactly that & would work the malnourished to death.

      The formal guarantees for nutrition from those benefits meant little when at least 5 million died during the Soviet famine of 1932 the Soviets created.

      For instance, over five million people lacked adequate nutrition and starved to death during the Soviet famine of 1932–1933, one of several Soviet famines. The 1932–33 famine was caused primarily by Soviet-mandated collectivization, although the famine in part was also caused by natural conditions. In response to frequent shortages, massive second economy existed for all categories of goods and services.

      In contrast, during the Great Depression in the United States, mortality fell & there were few reported cases from starvation.

      Without profit motive in those “benefits”, we might have expected a better environmental record in the Soviet Union. To the contrary

      Total emissions in the USSR in 1988 were about 79% of the US total. Considering that the Soviet GNP was only some 54% of that of the USA, this means that the Soviet Union generated 1.5 times more pollution than the USA per unit of GNP.

      Their planners considered pollution control

      unnecessary hindrance to economic development and industrialization

      and

      By the 1990s, 40% of Russia’s territory began demonstrating symptoms of significant ecological stress, largely due to a diverse number of environmental issues, including deforestation, energy irresponsibility, pollution, and nuclear waste.

      Stemming from those so-called benefits, the Soviet constitution of 1977 made a number of promises it couldn’t realize.

      • labor, free from exploitation, as the source of growth
      • continuous improvement of their living standards (art. 39)
      • steady growth of the productive forces (art. 40).

      The Soviet experience of socialist ownership and the concomitant centrally planned character of the economy showed the difficulties of realizing economic growth in order to ensure an increasing standard of living. Growth in the Soviet Union had been high in the nineteen thirties and early fifties, but had been deteriorating ever since.

      The actual functioning of the centrally planned economy was very different from the way it was planned to function. This had very much to do with the fact that economic actors in the Soviet Union also responded to state actions in a way that frustrated the state’s stated intentions. People engaged in informal and illegal activities and reduced their working time, frustrating the growth targets.

      Shortages increasingly lead people to the second economy with its blat (favors) network. Eventually, the last Soviet leaders, conceding failure by their own standards (economic, social, & cultural rights) & western standards (civil & political rights), dismantled the system from within: Western governments had exceeded their communist state by all standards.

      The end of the Cold War has changed the focus of the debate on human rights. The West, with its focus on civil and political rights, no longer opposed the Soviet states, with their emphasis on economic, social and cultural rights. The demise of the communist systems gave rise to a certain extent of triumphalism in the West, which had proven to be not only superior in political and civil rights, but also in economic and social rights. The economies of the western countries produced much more income and the material welfare of their populations was much higher than that of those living in Eastern Europe.


      1. by rule of law & protection of essential rights/liberties ↩︎