You could say the same thing about the terms democracy and republic, which a lot of those regimes you listed also claim they are. There was a time in the early 1800s of Europe where republic and democracy meant the reign of terror in the French revolution, an association strongly encouraged by the ruling monarchs of the time. They didn’t give up on the term though and they reasserted it’s original meaning of government by the people. You can’t let those in power dictate the words you organize around, because they will just define all of them as bad.
But France wasn’t the only example of a republic at that time, and what even inspired the French revolution was the United States establishing itself after breaking away from England. The monarchies and empires of Europe feared republics because by definition, it means a country ruled without a monarch, and there were two successful examples popping up one after another, and inspiring republicans and other revolutionaries all around the world.
The term had negative connotations between monarchs, nobles, and conservatives because to them it meant losing the power they had spent centuries convincing people was their right by God. But to serfs, peasants, workers, and liberals, it was an aspirational term. The politics of the 19th century were defined by European monarchs trying to justify their rule, consolidate as much power as possible, and perpetuate their regimes as long as they possibly could, because many of them could see the writing on the wall.
The issue with the term Communism in the 21st century is it was mostly the poor and the marginalized that suffered under the Soviet Warsaw block, and Asian regimes. They see the symbols of communism and think not of liberation, equality, and unity, but of their former oppressors. There are probably plenty of former officers of officials that are Nostalgic for their Soviet past, one of them is waging a war against Ukraine right now. But to the people who the term is supposed to inspire, it brings pain to many of them.
I understand the appeals of the communist label as a westerner, because ever since the beginnings of the 20th century it has been demonized, almost to the point of seeming cool. Not to mention a lot of the same things the US has criticized the USSR of doing, it was guilty of itself. There will probably be a day when the US fades away as an empire, and all that will remain are its history, its symbols and its legacy. and I hope people are just as critical to those who ignore their history, bask in their symbols and glorify their legacy.
But France wasn’t the only example of a republic at that time, and what even inspired the French revolution was the United States establishing itself after breaking away from England
That is very wrong and not historical correct. However you don’t talk to historians, but think for yourself without evidence or archives so you will never accept that.
![The Whole Fediverse is Wholesome [fixed]](https://media.kbin.social/media/75/34/7534fdd6766a8bc7f83436386577e62a42333384f5e0e25621c1ee00ac70f675.jpg){kind=link}
You could say the same thing about the terms democracy and republic, which a lot of those regimes you listed also claim they are. There was a time in the early 1800s of Europe where republic and democracy meant the reign of terror in the French revolution, an association strongly encouraged by the ruling monarchs of the time. They didn’t give up on the term though and they reasserted it’s original meaning of government by the people. You can’t let those in power dictate the words you organize around, because they will just define all of them as bad.
But France wasn’t the only example of a republic at that time, and what even inspired the French revolution was the United States establishing itself after breaking away from England. The monarchies and empires of Europe feared republics because by definition, it means a country ruled without a monarch, and there were two successful examples popping up one after another, and inspiring republicans and other revolutionaries all around the world.
The term had negative connotations between monarchs, nobles, and conservatives because to them it meant losing the power they had spent centuries convincing people was their right by God. But to serfs, peasants, workers, and liberals, it was an aspirational term. The politics of the 19th century were defined by European monarchs trying to justify their rule, consolidate as much power as possible, and perpetuate their regimes as long as they possibly could, because many of them could see the writing on the wall.
The issue with the term Communism in the 21st century is it was mostly the poor and the marginalized that suffered under the Soviet Warsaw block, and Asian regimes. They see the symbols of communism and think not of liberation, equality, and unity, but of their former oppressors. There are probably plenty of former officers of officials that are Nostalgic for their Soviet past, one of them is waging a war against Ukraine right now. But to the people who the term is supposed to inspire, it brings pain to many of them.
I understand the appeals of the communist label as a westerner, because ever since the beginnings of the 20th century it has been demonized, almost to the point of seeming cool. Not to mention a lot of the same things the US has criticized the USSR of doing, it was guilty of itself. There will probably be a day when the US fades away as an empire, and all that will remain are its history, its symbols and its legacy. and I hope people are just as critical to those who ignore their history, bask in their symbols and glorify their legacy.
That is very wrong and not historical correct. However you don’t talk to historians, but think for yourself without evidence or archives so you will never accept that.