3 ms·

You appear to be mixing up a bunch of timelines: The universal declaration of human rights was drafted in 1947 and 1948 and adopted in 1948, so fascism had alr

You appear to be mixing up a bunch of timelines: The universal declaration of human rights was drafted in 1947 and 1948 and adopted in 1948, so fascism had already spectacularly failed on the human rights front, as had communism, we just didn't know about communism's failures for a few decades because anyone who tried to tell us had their rights violated via death or gulag. Liberalism had not failed at this time (or arguably at any time. The places doing the nasty things were pretty clearly not liberal, as they pretty fundamentally don't recognize the individual and provide autonomy to the individual (as one of many reasons they weren't liberal). Instead this document is a reaction to the atrocities committed by the nazis (and would be a reaction to the atrocities committed by the communists had they been known).

jltsiren 2y ago
The reality of Soviet communism was well known in the aftermath of WW2. The USSR had not been an isolated state between the world wars, but there was widespread migration between it and the West. Despite that, many people still believed in communism and that it would lead to a better future. They didn't stop believing until decades later. And you don't get to apply double standards to ideologies. The places doing nasty things were liberal exactly in the same way as the USSR was communist. It wasn't liberalism in the sense the ideologues said it would be, but it was what liberalism became in the real world. In particular, classical liberalism was the dominant ideology in the 19th century British Empire.
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  yes the british empire that ended slavery at great personal expense because it was against their liberal values... It had warts for sure but compared to any of its contemporaries it was the best place to be a citizen of or colony of. Also you are incorrect about the ussr and knowing the atrocities. Hearing unsubstabtiated reports and having a mountain of evidence so high even the western communists had to concede communism wasnt working in the ussr are two very different things
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    This could be a difference between West European communists and North American communists. For Europeans, the USSR was a place you could visit and where you could meet ordinary people. Before the war, many had moved to the USSR to build communism. Many faced the purges, and some came back disappointed. And many of the purges were public matters reported openly in newspapers. The reality was well known, but most communists chose to downplay it. Despite its faults, the USSR was the most successful example of their ideology. The rift between West European and Soviet communists started forming after the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. The invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was the final straw, as almost every communist party condemned the USSR.
  - Khaine 2y ago
    The NY Times won a Pulitzer Prize for covering up the atrocities committed by the USSR[1]. [1] https://www.nytco.com/company/prizes-awards/new-york-times-statement-about-1932-pulitzer-prize-awarded-to-walter-duranty/ https://www.nytco.com/company/prizes-awards/new-york-times-s...

jltsiren 2y ago

The reality of Soviet communism was well known in the aftermath of WW2. The USSR had not been an isolated state between the world wars, but there was widespread migration between it and the West. Despite that, many people still believed in communism and that it would lead to a better future. They didn't stop believing until decades later. And you don't get to apply double standards to ideologies. The places doing nasty things were liberal exactly in the same way as the USSR was communist. It wasn't liberalism in the sense the ideologues said it would be, but it was what liberalism became in the real world. In particular, classical liberalism was the dominant ideology in the 19th century British Empire.

snapplebobapple 2y ago
yes the british empire that ended slavery at great personal expense because it was against their liberal values... It had warts for sure but compared to any of its contemporaries it was the best place to be a citizen of or colony of. Also you are incorrect about the ussr and knowing the atrocities. Hearing unsubstabtiated reports and having a mountain of evidence so high even the western communists had to concede communism wasnt working in the ussr are two very different things
- jltsiren 2y ago
  This could be a difference between West European communists and North American communists. For Europeans, the USSR was a place you could visit and where you could meet ordinary people. Before the war, many had moved to the USSR to build communism. Many faced the purges, and some came back disappointed. And many of the purges were public matters reported openly in newspapers. The reality was well known, but most communists chose to downplay it. Despite its faults, the USSR was the most successful example of their ideology. The rift between West European and Soviet communists started forming after the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. The invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was the final straw, as almost every communist party condemned the USSR.
- Khaine 2y ago
  The NY Times won a Pulitzer Prize for covering up the atrocities committed by the USSR[1]. [1] https://www.nytco.com/company/prizes-awards/new-york-times-statement-about-1932-pulitzer-prize-awarded-to-walter-duranty/ https://www.nytco.com/company/prizes-awards/new-york-times-s...