this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024

209 points (94.8% liked)

HistoryPorn

7311 readers

3 users here now

COMM MOVED TO !historyphotos@piefed.social

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

PugJesus@lemmy.world

PugJesus@kbin.social

PugJesus@lemmy.dbzer0.com

sga@lemmings.world

209

An anti-Communist civilian fighter runs with an AK during a street-fight in Bucharest, Romania. 1989. (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 years ago by setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world to c/historyporn@lemmy.world

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago

With some random people just sort of milling about in the background.

“Oh, they doin’ the streetfightin’ thing again are they? Bus doesn’t come for another 20 min, let’s have a look-sees.”

[–] pokemaster787@ani.social 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I've always gotta wonder where the fuck the dust cover went when I see pictures of people using/holding AKs without them. They aren't exactly small or something you take off very often, pretty hard to lose

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

A lot of them don't seem to have it for some reason. Don't know if it's made like that or if they just break and end up getting removed or what but I've seen a few cases where police have confiscated guns off people and a lot of the time they never seem to have the covers on.

I did wonder if perhaps it's a different version of the gun. I know there's like 9,000 different variants made across different decades so possibly they decided it isn't worth the extra weight or manufacturing cost.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The rifle in the picture is almost certainly a PM md. 65. I assure you they were made with dust covers. I have never seen a variation of a factory produced AK made without a dust cover.

A more likely, although still somewhat silly explanation is that sometimes AK dust covers can be tricky to get back on for someone inexperienced with them. Somebody may just give up in frustration and leave it off after disassembling and attempting to reassemble it.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Does anyone know if he survived?

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I have been looking, unfortunately while the picture is widely circulated the person in the photo is not named anywhere I can find. I will update the post if I come across anything.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Thanks.

[–] Hupf@feddit.de -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

A terrorist, you say?

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I looked for more information on the photo before posting and unfortunately I couldn’t find specifics on the identity of the man pictured.

If he was an anti-communist fighter in Romania, he would have been fighting in its 1989 revolution which overthrew the Warsaw Pact aligned Romanian Communist Party. The result of the overthrow being a republic styled government.

If I find anything specific I will update the post though.

[+] mashbooq@infosec.pub -14 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Actual antifa

[–] eltrain123@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Communism and fascism are not the same thing. They are opposite ends of the political spectrum.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism

Red fascism was a term coined by actual leftists (the original coining was by a Marxist) but largely co-opted by liberals and cryptofascists alike for their anti-communist rhetoric in the Cold War period.

There's no particular reason to think this guy is against totalitarianism in general though, even if you acknowledge the term monarchists and fascists aren't antifa for fighting red fascists.

There's also no particular reason to think he wasn't an anarchist. Or a liberal. Or literally anything besides a Ceausescu supporter.

He was an anti-communist living in Romania and being given quite a lot of reasons to be so, thus the near immediate 1989 Romanian Revolution when the Soviets fell, and that's where our knowledge on his politics ends.

Hell, half the revolutionaries were communists themselves, nearly the entire military defected after the minister of defense was assumedly executed for refusing to give orders to fire on protestors.

[–] Texas_Hangover@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Both pretty authoritarian, shitty ideologies tho.

[–] DreBeast@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Communism is fine. People are shitty tho. They tend to ruin everything, including capitalism.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Communism never seems to really be done properly though like sure people are a problem and they ruin it but the necessary checks and balances never seem to be put in place to actually prevent the corruption from happening.

The USSR never really got as far as properly implementing the philosophy. They did the first bits which are very open to corruption but then never finished off with all the extra bits of policy.

It's like capitalism but with no worker rights, environmental protections, or safety laws.

[–] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

As long as educated and wealthy people who don’t want to hand over their wealth exist communism will fail. If you “get rid” of these people your society is left weaker due to brain drain and those who remain are left worse off. Imagine being super intelligent and generating vast wealth with your labour and intellect then being forced to hand it all over and watching it get wasted by the government on projects you know will fail and given to lazy unintelligent people who enjoy all the benefits of your work while you get nothing more than them in return for your extra contribution

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Wrong. People aren’t shitty. The power to exploit turns people shitty. Power corrupts people. Hierarchy enforces a rule of shittiness, an opportunity and almost need to exploit. Eliminate the exploitative hierarchy and the concept of people being generally shitty would disappear.

[–] DreBeast@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I mean, this just re-enforces what I said. I can't think of one example where people are not eventually corrupted by power. Hence, why people are shitty. It really is in our nature to destroy ourselves. Just look at where we are now. There's no proof we'll get better. It's all just lofty ideals we like to say, which is another shitty thing we do. We are shit.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

communism is fine. People are shitty. That’s why they ruin everything, including capitalism.

This is what you said and what I was responding to (or a reasonable facsimile thereof).

Which is kind of the exact opposite of what you just said.

Communism is both an idealized view of people and their ability to create a system that is best for all—but it’s also overly naive about the entire process because it requires putting a unified party in charge to oversee the transition. So the general thrust of this belief is people are good, and people can be trusted to use their ultimate power for good…and then to willingly step down. Which is where every single communist movement has failed and every person put in power abused it and murdered.

People are shitty. That’s why they ruin everything, including capitalism.

Capitalism is a system that was designed to make people exploit each other. Its founding concept is exploitation. The more people down the line that you exploit, the more profit you have. It’s where underpaying, lobbying, outsourcing and slave labor, insider trading…literally every problem humanity has right now is inextricably tied to capitalism. Because the entire concept is built on exploitation. Screwing over more people = more money.

Do people in your daily life treat you like shit? And I mean just people. Not your boss, but everyday people. No. People on the whole are generally pretty easy going. But the system into which we’ve been born conditions us to hurt each other. We are all encouraged to take from everyone else because it means we get more.

But that is capitalism. That’s not people. If we were all born into a cooperative society…people would be helpful. The instinct to exploit and hurt others would be gone. Of course there are people that are just generally bad and hurtful, but this sense you have of people being generally awful would be gone. Because what you’re seeing is the hand of capitalism bitch slapping everyone. And you’re blaming it on people.

I just think you have it backwards. People are good. Capitalism ruined people. And communism is naive—but only because it believes you can hand a unified party of people ultimate power and they’ll happily relinquish it. Anarchism is the answer. It’s the same concept, but without trusting politicians.

[–] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I thought the USSR wasn't communist?

[–] EchoCT@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

That simply shows a misunderstanding of dialectical materialism. They attempted communism, got close, but failed to achieve what defines it.

They failed due to under industrialism and external influences, but failed none the less.

Communism is the culmination of a process. Not just something a society does one day.

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

After Lenin's death they stopped trying. It failed because Lenin replace one bourgeoisie ruling class with another and expected that class to have the same interests as the working class for some reason. A vanguard party will never work due to different class interests.

[–] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago

The point I was trying to make is that rhetorically the USSR is in a superposition of Communist/Not Communist that collapses into whichever is most convenient for the commenter at the time

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

In the same way the USA isn’t a democracy, but they were “doing the communism” still

[–] friendlymessage@feddit.de 10 points 2 years ago

It's anti-Authoritarianism. Branding every awful dictatorship as facism helps no one.

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago

How so?