Well the idea was to keep tabs on them and send them to concentration camps at the onset of war.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well the idea was to keep tabs on them and send them to concentration camps at the onset of war.
I should point out that some communists actually were sent to labour camps during WWII.
While the fall of the USSR certainly had an impact, I think positing it as the single (or even the major) cause of these changes is a bit simplistic. (for starters, a lot of these trends started in the 80's, before the USSR fell) and has more to do with various complicated social and economic changes.
The Fall of the USSR certainly was the final nail on the coffin of revolutionnary socialism and also orthodox socialism for the matter.
As other said the trend was already on-going even in the USSR itself which was renouncing the capital-less society. But the collapse was the final breath.
As other said the trend was already on-going even in the USSR itself which was renouncing the capital-less society. But the collapse was the final breath.
You are of course right that the causes were more complicated but I didn’t just refer to the fall of the USSR but also its ”percieved faults” that could be observed much earlier.
Not quite the same type of concentration camp though. More like the Japanese-American internment camps than Auschwitz.
My basic premise is: the working class and blue collar crowd are a healthy base, but socialism is a poisoned idealogy. The decline and fall of the USSR was good for the left in the short term in that it scared off the worst of the Marxists, but probably bad long term in that it has opened the way to trading a worker base for an ivory tower base, and the utopian idealists are taking over the left. The newest generation, having missed communism failing AND not having it as a boogeyman, may see a strong Marxism comeback on the left.
That door was well and truly open before the decline of the USSR though. Berlinguer's Historic Compromise with the Christian Democrats and Callaghan's That Option no Longer Exists speech both occurred in 1976, while theFrench Socialists' Nantes Conference (which effectively codified the principles of what we now might call the Third Way) took place in 1977. The rise of Gorbachev in 1984 coincides with the election of the first proto-Third Way governments in Australia and New Zealand.
I won't dispute that the lack of a Soviet boogeyman may well have softened my generation's attitudes towards Marxism, at least relative to our predecessors, but even if the Soviet Union somehow survived into the present day the gradual gentrification of the left-wing vote would have occurred regardless.
Well yes, after the nuclear winter set in that would have been an issue. Hypothetical atrocities aside... can we agree that it wasn’t as bad to be a communist in Sweden as being a social democrat in the USSR or Nazi Germany?
Sweden had food shortages during WW1 and WW2 and that was without participating in either war. Swedens concentration camps did not exist, we never went to war. Claims that the hypothetical existence of one is better that the real existence of the other are easily sold and bought but I think that is to overlook the point which is that Sweden was ready to sacrifice part of its population in case of emergency just because of their political opinions. I deal with a lot of could have, would have, should have in my work and I'm of the opinion that if you have such far reaching plans as Sweden had in this case that the sole thing that separated Sweden from the USSR wasn't Morality or subjective good or bad but a question of "When". Sweden shared the same Moral destitution as the USSR (we even used DDR slave labor", Sweden shared the same subjective measurement of good and bad as the USSR the only differences was that we never had the time to enact our concentration camp policies.
Imho, keeping political opponents in gulags during peacetime is worse than interning potential collaborators in case of war. Both are bad but the first one is worse.
Well on that basis, Nazi Germany never resorted to slave labour in peace time the way Soviet Union did. The British and French use of (German) slave labour in the years following the WWII was more extensive than German use of slave labour prior to WWII. Look may be I'm just stupid, but I've never understood why Nazi Germany was so evil that every vestige must be extirpated from the earth, but yet Saudi Arabia is seen as a exemplar of human rights and respect for other nations and culture deserving to be the recipient of lend least and loyal friendship, by the US over eight decades. I mean people complain about Kristallnacht, but try running a Jewish business in 1930s Saudi Arabia. Actually never mind the nineteen thirties try opening a Jewish business in 1980s Saudi Arabia and see how far you get.
Now it must be said that Britain treated its German slave labour rather well. Quite a few chose to remain in Britain when they were released. But then the United States slaves on release were generally not keen to return to Africa and that's not generally accepted as a good enough excuse.
Industrial scale genocide is worse than putting prisoners of war to work.
No one sees Saudi Arabia as an exemplary display of human rights, their seat is bought and we all know that.
The European left died with the working class. From over 50%, the part of the population working in the industry decreased to 16% today (France approximate figures). For parties whom electoral basis was the factory's workers, it is a terrible blow. In 1981, the French communists were already dying, replaced by social-democrats who will quickly implement free-market policies.
The communist were strong from the twenties to the sixties, their declines began in the seventies, with the decline of industry in western Europe.
The communist were strong from the twenties to the sixties, their declines began in the seventies, with the decline of industry in western Europe.
But why would the message of the left be any less popular with low income workers in the service sector? The working class isn’t dead, they just moved from steel mills to McDonalds.
They have all reason to be receptive, but they are not. The feelings of disenfranchisements in post-industrial area fueled the rise of reactionaries parties (read "it was better before but xxx came and cause all of our troubles" were xxx is anything from outside). Furthermore the unions, a big support of the left, grew weaker with the weakening of the industrial sector, which in turned cut the left from its base and weakened it.
Different competition. Service workers are much easier to train, with younger people allowed as the jobs are safer. More spread out too. A strip mall might have a lot of people working at the entire place, but spread out between multiple stores and restaurants. Having issues with one place means you can easily ditch and move on to another, for a relatively similar job. This'll create some competition for labor with the stores, but also vastly reduce one's leeway in striking. It's a different ballgame.