Soviet leaders were not opposed to Nazism at any point until 1941
While the British were pushing appeasement, Stalin was trying to form a multi-nation anti-Nazi pact. If the Brits and French had joined it, World War 2 either would have been averted, or it would have been much, much shorter as a million Soviet soldiers would have reinforced the Polish-German border and they would have fought together instead of wasting resources fighting against each other.
The fact that so many western historians get so hung up on the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact when it was one of the last in a long line of treaties signed by non-fascist government with the Nazis is a form of soft revisionism. They want you to think that there’s a difference between our good liberal diplomacy, and their evil communist backroom deals.
No, the Kulaks did not deserve it, you filthy chekist. No more than the US middle class deserves to be brutally murdered.
Yes they did, and if a mob of the third world’s poor rose up and killed middle class Americans (self included) we would very much deserve it too. My recognition of this simple reality is why I’m a communist, and your denial of it is why you cling so tightly to liberalism.
The Soviets burned a lot more than antisemetic books. You seriously think they killed capitalists, but left the pro-capitalism books intact?
So in addition to burning antisemitic books, they also burned reactionary psuedoscientific nonsense produced by the previous regime. Why is this a bad thing, again?
This isn’t a Gish gallop.
Your previous post was a glib list of anticommunist slanders with no analysis or explanation, hoping to overwhelm my own articulated points with a bunch of nonsense. That’s a gish gallop.
You were welcome to respond with actual examples of the “incredible successes” of the communist countries. But instead you are godwining the thread
Did you read my comment? I expounded upon the Communist countries’ tremendous success in ending the cycles of famine that had long plagued their regions, and further commended China for virtually eliminating all hunger within its borders, a feat unmatched by any capitalist country. Then I talked about how Communist countries, when they’re in the midst of a bad policy or major mistake, are more capable of pulling out, cutting their losses and making amends than Capitalist countries are - I cited the examples of The Great Purge, which was ended after less than a year and the overwhelming majority of those arrested granted amnesty, and the Cultural Revolution, which was ended after Mao’s death and is reflected on by the modern CPC as a mistake that they shouldn’t repeat.
I contrasted these two socialist examples of governments changing course against the Capitalist example of the War on Drugs, which has also killed and imprisoned a tremendous number of people for political reasons, and which has been known to be a practical failure at all of its stated goals for decades, but which continues nonetheless because it generates billions of dollars in profit for private companies that arm and train police. This is not a whataboutism, this is a comparison - truly the worst thing to happen to liberals in the last few years was John Oliver teaching you morons words like “whataboutism” which you have gone on to totally misunderstand and misuse.
okay. last time I promise. you’re clearly not reading my comments anyway so I’m gonna stop responding now.
The reason I didn’t take your examples of “Communist countries tremendous success” seriously is because you were comparing apples to oranges. Seriously, comparing starvation to food insecurity is ludicrous. It is possible to actually compare deaths from starvation per 100,000 people, but that’s not what you did. Because to do that, you’d have to A) rely on something other than propaganda and B) Recognize that China hasn’t entirely eliminated hunger, much less deaths from starvation. Although they have made great progress in reducing the numbers since their series of famines.
You also ignored that the Soviet Union didn’t experience famine because they relied on foreign aid - food aid - for a number of years. So that helped keep their people fed: Food given freely by capitalist pigs who deserve to be murdered for their mere existence in a more successful economy.
As for the great purge, it was followed by years of lesser purges.
The idea that the west does not change courses or look at past programs as a mistake is obviously quite invalid, so there was no point in even mentioning it. But since you cling to that idea, great. Obviously we’ve changed our minds on some things, as the Trail of Tears is now seen as wrong, as is the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Slavery and Jim Crow fall into those categories as well. The War on Drugs is also seen as a failure, despite the fact that it totters on for now.
I don’t watch John Oliver, moron. There is no nuance in this discussion because you are clearly incapable of it.
You are right about one thing: My horror over the deaths caused by communism, including the killing of kulaks, is why I am not a communist. Your gleeful appreciation of the righteousness of democide under communism doesn’t make you a communist. It makes you deeply disturbed individual who is incapable of empathy. It likely points to sociopathy, or some other element of the dark triad, with the political beliefs adopted as a fig leaf to cover your antisocial tendencies.
While the British were pushing appeasement, Stalin was trying to form a multi-nation anti-Nazi pact. If the Brits and French had joined it, World War 2 either would have been averted, or it would have been much, much shorter as a million Soviet soldiers would have reinforced the Polish-German border and they would have fought together instead of wasting resources fighting against each other.
The fact that so many western historians get so hung up on the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact when it was one of the last in a long line of treaties signed by non-fascist government with the Nazis is a form of soft revisionism. They want you to think that there’s a difference between our good liberal diplomacy, and their evil communist backroom deals.
Yes they did, and if a mob of the third world’s poor rose up and killed middle class Americans (self included) we would very much deserve it too. My recognition of this simple reality is why I’m a communist, and your denial of it is why you cling so tightly to liberalism.
So in addition to burning antisemitic books, they also burned reactionary psuedoscientific nonsense produced by the previous regime. Why is this a bad thing, again?
Your previous post was a glib list of anticommunist slanders with no analysis or explanation, hoping to overwhelm my own articulated points with a bunch of nonsense. That’s a gish gallop.
Did you read my comment? I expounded upon the Communist countries’ tremendous success in ending the cycles of famine that had long plagued their regions, and further commended China for virtually eliminating all hunger within its borders, a feat unmatched by any capitalist country. Then I talked about how Communist countries, when they’re in the midst of a bad policy or major mistake, are more capable of pulling out, cutting their losses and making amends than Capitalist countries are - I cited the examples of The Great Purge, which was ended after less than a year and the overwhelming majority of those arrested granted amnesty, and the Cultural Revolution, which was ended after Mao’s death and is reflected on by the modern CPC as a mistake that they shouldn’t repeat.
I contrasted these two socialist examples of governments changing course against the Capitalist example of the War on Drugs, which has also killed and imprisoned a tremendous number of people for political reasons, and which has been known to be a practical failure at all of its stated goals for decades, but which continues nonetheless because it generates billions of dollars in profit for private companies that arm and train police. This is not a whataboutism, this is a comparison - truly the worst thing to happen to liberals in the last few years was John Oliver teaching you morons words like “whataboutism” which you have gone on to totally misunderstand and misuse.
okay. last time I promise. you’re clearly not reading my comments anyway so I’m gonna stop responding now.
The reason I didn’t take your examples of “Communist countries tremendous success” seriously is because you were comparing apples to oranges. Seriously, comparing starvation to food insecurity is ludicrous. It is possible to actually compare deaths from starvation per 100,000 people, but that’s not what you did. Because to do that, you’d have to A) rely on something other than propaganda and B) Recognize that China hasn’t entirely eliminated hunger, much less deaths from starvation. Although they have made great progress in reducing the numbers since their series of famines. You also ignored that the Soviet Union didn’t experience famine because they relied on foreign aid - food aid - for a number of years. So that helped keep their people fed: Food given freely by capitalist pigs who deserve to be murdered for their mere existence in a more successful economy.
As for the great purge, it was followed by years of lesser purges.
The idea that the west does not change courses or look at past programs as a mistake is obviously quite invalid, so there was no point in even mentioning it. But since you cling to that idea, great. Obviously we’ve changed our minds on some things, as the Trail of Tears is now seen as wrong, as is the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Slavery and Jim Crow fall into those categories as well. The War on Drugs is also seen as a failure, despite the fact that it totters on for now.
I don’t watch John Oliver, moron. There is no nuance in this discussion because you are clearly incapable of it.
You are right about one thing: My horror over the deaths caused by communism, including the killing of kulaks, is why I am not a communist. Your gleeful appreciation of the righteousness of democide under communism doesn’t make you a communist. It makes you deeply disturbed individual who is incapable of empathy. It likely points to sociopathy, or some other element of the dark triad, with the political beliefs adopted as a fig leaf to cover your antisocial tendencies.
I don’t expect a response.