#681
that is true and the real history is horrible enough... hopefully i'm not making it sound like a joke, i've only done it twice and it's to point out that the standard of evidence for the holodomor is so shoddy that if applied equally to the dust bowl would be slam-dunk genocide by starvation, esp considering starvation's like a major part of US war culture and bullets had stopped flying only really a decade prior in the declared race war... point taken tho!
#682
Banned for dustbowl denial.

Also I thought the Americans who were starved and put into camps were white not indigenous?


http://www.pravdareport.com/world/americas/19-05-2008/105255-famine-0/
#683

shriekingviolet posted:

I feel like it's a huge insult to the memory of actual, real indigenous genocide to psych out liberals with something that didn't actually happen (deliberate dustbowl.) Like I get the point of your comparative irony, but... when an actual real strategy was to relocate nomadic indigenous communities into "farms" that they weren't allowed to leave at gunpoint, then giving them broken equipment rotten grain and unbroken fields full of unsuitable soil, and leaving them to starve... maybe don't go with the fake farming genocide joke?

i dunno, if you're using it as a lead-in to talk about or at least reference the real deal in detail, particularly the fact that genocidal practices were ongoing well into the 1900s instead of just being an Andrew Jackson kinda thing like most Americans think, I don't think it's problematic (altho aren't you Canadian? I do get the impression that the sensitivities are different up there)

#684
one time my old (native tribaL judge) boss related a story about loudly refusing to accept 20 dollar bills from a bank because jackson was a genocidal piece of shit, she was laughing throughout the story but was simultaneously dead serious. basically, native humor is LF as fuck
#685
Yeah I was more objecting to quick off the cuff comparisons like "the holodomor narrative as a deliberate genocide is as laughable as an artificial dustbowl" when genocide through agricultural deprivation was an actual tactic used in the west. An in depth analysis and comparison is good, great even, but as a pithy gotcha it sits wrong with me, if that makes sense?
#686
Watching these videos about the history and context of the Moscow Trials made me nostalgic for the 4 page debate we had about limiti and how that really means 'quota' in this age of kompromat and disinformatsia

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TBY_aDd5knE

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NHl5nU5WYn8

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NrrDMyAz1SU
#687
My waifu (wife) likes the colour pinku (pink) and to push it to the limitu (quota)
#688
the banner which the Victims of Communism Foundation put up in New York recently (as an example) relies on the Black Book of communism for its 100 million victims figure (as do most Wikipedia articles on communism)

This article claims the 100 million figure originated in a translation error from the original french
https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidarityNews/comments/3ms13g/the_black_book_of_bad_data_bias_lies_and/

10 million "killed by communism" is much more in line with Snyder types.
Pretty embarrassing that movements (made up of Conservatives Nazis anarchists socialists etc) can be built around arbitrary made up numbers with no one doing any investigations

Anyway most of these "10/100 million victims" are from famine so one can simply x10 that to get the number victims of capitalism
#689

xipe posted:

Watching these videos about the history and context of the Moscow Trials made me nostalgic for the 4 page debate we had about limiti and how that really means 'quota' in this age of kompromat and disinformatsia

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TBY_aDd5knE

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NHl5nU5WYn8

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NrrDMyAz1SU



after watching this great series i saw a related vid where TheFinnishBolshevik and 2 other socialists debated with 3 capitalists and it surprised me how they barely talked about imperialism. i mean how can you talk about the destructive nature of capitalism without in-depth discussion of war, regime change, sanctions, etc? it just seemed really odd to me how unprepared they were. too many vague accusations and not enough statistics or historical events referenced

if you got 4 hours to burn:


#690
it seemed really odd to you that a bunch of youtube blowhards arguing with another buncn of youtube blowhards was terrible and worthless?
#691
to want to be in the same video as sargon of akkad you ahve to be at least nearly as stupid as them
#692

Synergy posted:

i mean how can you talk about the destructive nature of capitalism without in-depth discussion of war, regime change, sanctions, etc?



#693
Really I mean, it's obvious to everyone that never talking about imperialism is an attempt to make socialism more palatable in the United States in this everyone can play, no one needs to think at all about how the world works today sort of way, which of course people on this forum find naive. People shouldn't have to be theory experts to be considered socialists but there's this sort of tentative terror about the topic among a lot of people styling themselves, to themselves, as the officers for the cause, because it makes socialism seem like something different from society right now. That's "bad" in case people who have no problem with society right now want to call themselves socialists in a way that won't hurt the project, which is an impossibility in many cases and a bad read on why pro-socialist sentiment is growing among a lot of groups, including among younger people with dim economic prospects, in the U.S.

It's like the thing I posted above where people pick out a few elements of the country's history that make socialism less alien-seeming, which I have come to agree with getfiscal is a worthwhile project in a lot of different places after not being fond of that idea for a long time, but then it turns into pretending that practicing socialism, but not calling it that, is the secret key to U.S. power in the world, which is absurd and reveals itself to be absurd when practice follows that line.

More importantly, it ignores how a lot more people in the country are moving toward socialism because they can detect their own lives becoming more and more unstable and feel less and less interested in offering lip service to a system they rightly suspect is moving as quickly as it can toward a (likely impossible) contemporary capitalist ideal of luxury items and services as the only necessary path for capital to make more capital, so that other people can't buy anything, because even white-collar professions linked to many years in secondary education have been automated, and the companies trying to ensure those people can buy their products right now stop altogether and are glad to do it. That makes people disaffected in a way that can't be fixed quickly, because economic upturns don't do a thing to change the unpleasant numbers they're seeing at the end of every month in their personal lives and the cumulative effects of those numbers over years of their "working"-age lives. So they're more likely to entertain the idea that the state that's a direct representation of the capitalists in closest proximity to them is just plain bad for the world altogether.

But when I talked about it recently Offline, someone who is very patient with my low level of knowledge took it to 102 level for my benefit and brought up that it's maybe important for socialists to understand it in more detail than that, and pointed out that a lot of shushing people about imperialism among socialist intellectuals has to do with the perception, or the second- or third-order effects of the previous perception, that a lot of the New Left being blatantly anti-U.S., and against the war "too soon", during the war on Vietnam was some sort of magic spell that sealed away the supposed chances for mainstream U.S. socialist politics in a genie's lamp for forty years.

It's pretty hard for a lot of people in the U.S., even in bad economic times, to muster the courage to support political positions in a way that doesn't try to assert that most people in the country support their positions and always have, in part because of the enforced blindness to rifts between the classes and their interests in discussion even among left-liberals who like to talk about poverty a lot. That's understandable when it comes to newer socialists, or those with a bad taste in their mouths from earlier decades who don't want to believe the U.S. left was largely wiped out by successful and violent campaigns by domestic police. It's also a likely route to repeat failure because it takes one of the few resilient parts of a historically shaky, impotent left in the country, the recognition that underlying conditions can change and change quickly in ways that make unpopular ideas into popular ones, and throws that out the window.

The foreign policy / imperialism skittishness is probably one symptom of the extreme success of the propagandist's point of view represented by people like Robert Novak and William Safire, where once it was unarguably clear the war was lost, the military-industrial right wing pivoted the very next day to explaining that the U.S. war effort failed because the government caved to pressure from insidious hippies and didn't "allow" its military to win, that a hands-off policy that spent even more on hot-rod weapons and vehicles with even less oversight would put wars in the hands of people who are equipped to make the right decisions to win wars. What it really does in terms of the U.S. is put those decisions in the hands of self-important drunks whose idea of history is a bunch of other self-important drunks dressing up as Confederate soldiers for a day and getting drunk with other drunks pretending to be the Union, but that's not a popular position among many people who read the news in the U.S. now much more than it was then.

The "let them win" thing is still enough of a dominant and pitch-friendly position that it's the public propaganda right now for why Trump's administration doing all the same things in the same places as Obama's around the world will somehow end up with more victories or even in a clear definition of victory that seems to have slipped away long ago, though if putting the U.S. military in charge of its own policy objectives even happens in any real way, it's more likely to further erode the ability of the U.S. state to wage war effectively, because it will alienate support-staff governments in other countries and fracture planning and spending across command centers in different regions vying for attention. Usually that idea, the military being allowed to paddle its own canoe to decisive victory, was farmed out to Republican-supporting writers in the press, while people like Nixon's, Reagan's or W. Bush's administrations projected the idea, however hard to believe, that the guys in the White House were natural-born strategy experts who bent everyone in the military to their will. The Democrats really only did one thing differently, which was to not spread that line in the press about the military running things.

I think it's a good idea to recognize that domestic socialists avoiding criticisms of the overall role of the U.S. in the world, or really, promoting a U.S.-Europe joint imperialist project of enforcing "human rights" following Democratic Party ideology, acted as the explicit position of the older DSA leadership in very recent years when it was much smaller than it's become, for the specific reason that they thought the New Left destroyed socialist politics in the country through vehement anti-imperialism, and the newer leaders can't shake it off and don't really want to try. It's still embedded, in an explicit way, in the text of the group's official platform, and it's still what guides the organization as the demsoc intellectuals too bashful to form a party, where it serves as reassurance to the current, younger leadership that they're not crazy and maybe have in their futures mainstream careers in electoral politics or long-delayed recognition as serious pundits by figures in the current news media. I'm kind of cynical about that but it's moot anyway as they couldn't extract it if they tried from my point of view, and since that's the sort of nebulous cloud in which all the Jacobin-type public figures of CNN-friendly socialism drift, it's their position too whether or not they occasionally grumble in Democrat-friendly ways about U.S. policy, the Iraq War, etc. in articles they write.

But again, a big problem I see for those leaders' ideas and plans is how a lot of the growing numbers of rank-and-file socialist sympathizers and "anti-capitalists" in the U.S. are a lot less optimistic about their futures living in the country as citizens or residents, especially a lot of the younger unemployed and underemployed who want to stay busy doing something and will continue to define what the term "socialism" means in the country for years to come. That already makes them a lot less interested in avoiding sound critiques of foreign policy that were allowed by Democrats to flourish under Bush and only applying them to Republicans, because those rank-and-file know, especially after the Clinton debacle in 2016, that the Democratic leadership is as unlike them and unable to speak to them as the Republican leadership, and is trying to decouple completely from them and people like them in fund-raising, including even the few lucky workers to still find themselves in trade unions with strong financial ties to the party, so the party leadership doesn't have to spend money trying to raise money anymore from dissatisfied people who don't want to donate in small sums in the fashion that supposedly helped Obama win twice in some surprising places around the country according to current horse-race Democratic strategy. That's a better line for the press than it is a long-term strategy to compete with your rivals in terms of fundraising under the U.S. legal regime, because if it becomes a big part of the strategy, it means that bad economic times cut into your funding significantly, as opposed to wealthy donors and donation bundlers who donate by reflex year after year to maintain personal social ties to state power.

Those rank-and-file disillusioned don't really give a fuck about maintaining the illusion of a future flag-waving U.S. socialist-imperialist state as their goal, because the flag means nothing to them except to indicate that the person waving it is probably a threat to their ability to pay their rent next month, and they don't care much about becoming proud of it ever again, that being to my ears the most tone-deaf message the DSA leadership is trying to spread right now because a lot of their newer members who don't have bylines don't see that outcome as likely or personally uplifting. To me that's pretty good news, in the sense that unchaining patriotism from its current modes of expression would likely be necessary for any bright political future for anti-imperialist socialist politics in the U.S., and it's happening because of stark recognition of personal, material self-interest among those doing it. It makes me optimistic for the future of real socialist politics in the imperial core for like, the first time ever.

Now back to this thread about how Stalin was Actually Good

Edited by cars ()

#694

Synergy posted:

if you got 4 hours to burn:


i do not

#695
listen to my 4 hour skype argument
#696
i promise everyone that my post doesn't mean i ever listened to anything by a guy whose Internet truename looks like he's chief hobbit of the hobbit army
#697
parasites? in MY first world working class? centipedes.jpg
#698
i'm glad seanbaby overcame his history of hair dye and calling everything gay to become a successful app brand
#699

cars posted:

Internet truename


x_X_BONGBOY_X_x~420~ BY YOUR SECRET NAME I CONJURE AND ABJURE THEE, APPEAR BEFORE US AND GRANT A MEASURE OF YOUR POWER

#700

cars posted:

I think it's a good idea to recognize that domestic socialists avoiding criticisms of the overall role of the U.S. in the world, or really, promoting a U.S.-Europe joint imperialist project of enforcing "human rights" following Democratic Party ideology, acted as the explicit position of the older DSA leadership in very recent years when it was much smaller than it's become, for the specific reason that they thought the New Left destroyed socialist politics in the country through vehement anti-imperialism, and the newer leaders can't shake it off and don't really want to try. It's still embedded, in an explicit way, in the text of the group's official platform, and it's still what guides the organization as the demsoc intellectuals too bashful to form a party, where it serves as reassurance to the current, younger leadership that they're not crazy and maybe have in their futures mainstream careers in electoral politics or long-delayed recognition as serious pundits by figures in the current news media.



I think it's not even so much a worry about past failures or strategy but that a lot of the Jacobin types and old guard Harringtonites genuinely and deeply believe in intervention and anticommunism. If anything, they seem to struggle with wearing a big tent mask. Sankara and some DSAers shitting on MLs right before the convention, the anti-Telesur article right before the NA vote--the timing of them was very unstrategic and got them a lot of flack from newer seemingly still demsoc people, and it felt more like outbursts they couldn't keep in any longer.

I share your same optimism. There was a recent medium post about one DSA chapter having some sort of pseudo schism with newer members who were communist and way more radical than some people expected and I'm pretty sure it was all a bunch of misguided larping and shit but still it seems that the new recruits radicalization has rapidly outstripped what the Jacobinites were expecting. Even just seeing "ironic" pro Stalin/USSR memes are heartening, because it will at least decouple the hammer and sickle from being a world historic boogey man for teens nowadays. I don't think I was exposed to any Marxist thought or even imagery growing up or even in college outside of Animal Farm level shit but now you can find Thomas Sankara quotes all over social media.

Then again I'm probably in a bubble, and in particular I'm worried DSA at least is too pro-troop. There's a troop on the NPC that nobody gave a shit about and people got super defensive when it was brought up. The GI bill is insanely robust and I could see enlistment rising the more and more untenable higher ed becomes.

#701
Could any1 'splain me how people like Trotsky, Kruschev, Yezhov and the likes were able to gain prominence in the early USSR/Bolsheviks?
#702
I dunno man you work with a bunch of people for a while because you've got things to accomplish, they're there and they have relevant skills, maybe you get to be friends maybe not but they stick around. Later on down the line they might develop an unhealthy fixation with corn or a sudden urgent need for ice axe brain surgery, that's just life.
#703
https://lorenzoae.wordpress.com/2017/10/11/on-russia-todays-liberals/amp/
#704

xipe posted:

https://lorenzoae.wordpress.com/2017/10/11/on-russia-todays-liberals/amp/


#705
still fun to compare the early anti-Bolshevik propaganda that got abandoned or inverted by the propagandists in the years since, such as, Everyone In Russia Getting Laid
#706
the chumps who think they can or should turn critique of liberal identity politics into Red recruitment of 4chan should probably just revive the scare story about Lenin nationalizing/redistributing the country's wife supply
#707
I watched vyborg stran, 1939 film for Soviet people which gives air to this ('women will be nationalised by the Bolsheviks') and other rumours

Go to 18m 48sec or so for a funny and accurate depiction of anarchists

https://youtu.be/t-hjbIQQ2lo
#708

xipe posted:

https://lorenzoae.wordpress.com/2017/10/11/on-russia-todays-liberals/amp/



fuck this was so good

#709
[account deactivated]
#710

Caesura109 posted:

someone here with all the sources should go fix wikipedia. that site is the pseudo-factual toilet of the internet, in that it feeds shit into the large system of forums and social media sites that become widely cited 'facts' from 'academics' like Snyder


iirc some posters here have done stuff like that before and you'll basically get into a massive edit war and debate with the head nerds that run things and its unlikely they'll change the articles in any substantial way.

#711

Caesura109 posted:

someone here with all the sources should go fix wikipedia. that site is the pseudo-factual toilet of the internet, in that it feeds shit into the large system of forums and social media sites that circulate widely cited 'facts' from 'academics' like Snyder


sorry but im too busy trying to change CNN from the inside

#712
im going to make socialism as vacuous as possible, so that everything counts as socialism. that rock is socilaism. that bird is socialism. being gay is socialism. thank you.
#713

Gibbonstrength posted:

im going to make socialism as vacuous as possible, so that everything counts as socialism. that rock is socilaism. that bird is socialism. being gay is socialism. thank you.


*putting on my controversial hat* China? you better believe thats socialism

#714

Caesura109 posted:

someone here with all the sources should go fix wikipedia. that site is the pseudo-factual toilet of the internet, in that it feeds shit into the large system of forums and social media sites that circulate widely cited 'facts' from 'academics' like Snyder



I vandalize it to make people ask celebrities funny questions so *little Trooper voice* I'm doing my part

#715
thought i would see if if my piece remains the sole accurate reference on an article about something the cia made up, and well
#716

Gibbonstrength posted:

im going to make socialism as vacuous as possible, so that everything counts as socialism. that rock is socilaism. that bird is socialism. being gay is socialism. thank you.



Seal Team Six? Socialism. The cops? Socialism. The USSR? State capita

#717
Reminds me of a finance class I sat in a couple years ago on the history of capitalism. Idk why I did in retrospect, but I learned that Aristotle was basically a socialist and was like the bernie sanders of antiquity. The heirs of the US financial system swallow this shit whole too.
#718

rolaids posted:

fuck this was so good


#719
edit: blankpost

Edited by neckwattle ()

#720
Russian Telegraph are making some 360 degree videos about the 1917 period

https://youtu.be/I1iIz93kpmo