
Moscow, my family, and me - pepys
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/05/moscow-my-family-and-me
======
CriticalSection
> The CPGB’s loyalty to Moscow also triggered its morally darkest moments –
> the switches of line dictated by the Communist International (Comintern) in
> the 1920s and 1930s; the U-turn following the Nazi-Soviet pact in 1939,
> which arguably did more damage to the party than any other event in its
> history

The USSR signed the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939 because England signed the Nazi-
UK pact of 1938 in Munich. Molotov wanted and would have preferred a pact with
the UK and the west, and had made such diplomatic offers and was rebuffed.
Finally for the Soviet Union's survival Molotov signed a non-aggression pact
in 1939 while kicking industrial production into overdrive at home. If the
"Nazi-Soviet pact" is a "morally darkest moment", what was Neville
Chamberlain's "peace in our time"?

~~~
paganel
The poor Soviets, how they were "forced" to sign the damn pact with the Nazis,
a pact that saw them get a huge chunk of Poland not long after that and some
other part of Romania (my country) in June 1940. If these are the pacts that
they were "forced" to sign I'm really wondering what were those pacts in which
they had the strong hand.

Also, for those HN-ers who want to really get a good, more truthful look at
the causes behind WW2 I heartily recommend Ernst Nolte's "European Civil War".
From the wiki page
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Nolte](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Nolte)):

> Nolte contends that the great decisive event of the 20th century was the
> Russian Revolution of 1917, which plunged all of Europe into a long-
> simmering civil war that lasted until 1945. To Nolte, fascism, communism's
> twin, arose as a desperate response by the threatened middle classes of
> Europe to what Nolte has often called the “Bolshevik peril”.

~~~
dang
You obviously know a lot about history and your HN comments are usually fine,
but there's a pattern where, when commenting on historical tragedies, you have
become sarcastic and provocative. Could you please not do that on HN anymore?
This is an international community striving for a civility that is constantly
fragile. If you flame-throw straight into explosive material (which I'm sad to
say you've done more than once), you do damage.

We always tell people that HN threads should be like good conversation, but
there's one way in which that isn't true. When we're sitting around talking
about intense stuff with friends or compatriots, there's a latitude for
intense expression that we don't have here. That's because in a large internet
community like HN, the bonds between members are much weaker, and there are
many tribes and competing loyalties among us. Talking about, for example, how
the British never really suffered, is the kind of thing that can stir up
conflict all over again (albeit, fortunately, in a trivial teapot). In such a
place, we all need to bring our diplomatic skills. I'm sure you can use those
and still share your historical insights.

~~~
paganel
Sorry if I offended anyone, I'll just try to not enter into the comment area
of any history-related posts from now on.

------
thriftwy
I mean, seriously, why on earth would one be communist in the UK?

Communist project probably cost more to the lands of ex-Russian Empire, _in
lives_ , than the total population of the UK today.

Then there's all the crypto colony stuff.

~~~
ue_
I'd like to say that I am a British (born and raised in England) Communist.
This does not mean that I support the actions of Stalin, nor Mao, nor Che or
Castro. I also don't think we should play numbers games with ideologies or
figures of history. Both the USSR and Nazi Germany committed various horrible
acts, and so did the British Empire.

There are various strains of Communists who either (i) believe that the
actions of those 20th c. regimes were failures, and the points of failures
must be investigated and fixed or (ii) believe that the approach taken by
these nations (Marxism-Leninism) was not based on sound principles or (iii)
are not proponents of orthodox Marxism at all, such as anarchists, anarcho-
syndicalists or to some extent anarcho-Communists.

To lump all Communists together as a monolithic block which supports those
actions of past people is ahistorical and wrong. Many do support the actions,
though many also do not.

~~~
remarkEon
>There are various strains of Communists who either (i) believe that the
actions of those 20th c. regimes were failures, and the points of failures
must be investigated and fixed or (ii) believe that the approach taken by
these nations (Marxism-Leninism) was not based on sound principles or (iii)
are not proponents of orthodox Marxism at all, such as anarchists, anarcho-
syndicalists or to some extent anarcho-Communists.

I always find it fascinating that, when defending failed Communist states,
Communists tend to revert to a variation of the No-True-Scotsman. The previous
Communist regime, with all its murderous barbarism, simply wasn't Communist
enough or was the "wrong" Communism to begin with!

~~~
icebraining
I don't think that's a fair criticism, because there have always been
Communist critics of those regimes, even before they turned out to be
murderously barbaric. It's not necessarily revisionist like in an NTS fallacy.

~~~
remarkEon
I'm still waiting for one to not end up being murderously barbaric, existence
of early critics or not.

~~~
ue_
Why not contribute to the modern Marxist discourse in finding out how this can
be achieved, then?

~~~
thriftwy
Why would an opponent to Marxist discourse want to contribute to it?

There are a few discourses with much better traction than Marxism, why not
stick to those?

It's basically a request to produce Failblog-grade falling-on-a-face-while-
smashing-your-balls results. Maybe you will be able to do what noone could
before you, but chances are, you will just hurt yourself. And your society.

