#41

elias posted:

Petrol posted:

if there is call for it i can clean it up substantially (split into single pages, straighten etc), OCR, and create a smaller file

please do this but first do it for caliban and the witch as you promised three hundred months ago.


thanks for the reminder. i did end up getting a physical copy. iirc it is the 2nd edition, but i can't find any info about what has changed, not even on the publisher's website. anyway, yes. i will scan it soon and share.

elias posted:

do this also for the scans of the selected writings of anuradha ghandy and also people's war and women's liberation in nepal by hisila yami floating around on libgen.


no promises about taking further requests, if you want to try doing this yourself you need to export the pdf to images and then use scantailor. the latest version is here https://github.com/Tulon/scantailor/releases and there is an osx version floating around somewhere if you're so inclined. ganbatte ne

Edited by Petrol ()

#42
I spent 50 bux on trading w the enemy i should prob scan that

I was about to pay 90 bux for the devils chemists but i found it as an ebook at the last minute
#43

Panopticon posted:

swampman posted:

Graziosi - clearly Snyder's chief "source" here - indeed makes these charges. But Graziosi cites no evidence at all, not a single reference of any kind for these statements or for the entire paragraph of which they are a part. Snyder had to know this, of course, just as anyone who reads Graziosi's article would know it. But Snyder cites these statements anyway. Of course Snyder's readers will not know that Graziosi has no evidence for these very serious charges.

actually graziosi cites "danilov, manning and viola, tragediia soveskoi derevni, 3:603, 611"

You've got your wires crossed. This paragraph you've quoted from Furr is on the question of whether peasants were required to return grain advances. That's not mentioned in the section you've pasted. Snyder cites Graziosi, "New interpretation," 8 for his evidence that peasants were required to return grain advances.

Now, on the question of whether Kaganovich decided to "condemn millions to die of starvation," Furr does explore the section of Graziosi you've pasted, I encourage you to go back and read Furr's examination of pages 603 and 611 of Danilov, posted above, and how Graziosi lies about the contents of those pages.

#44
here's a fixed version of the select writ89ings of anuradha ghandy

https://mega.nz/#!mZgDgSyL!KOm0paPTHzffZCPw4dsIq5_NdaMZIFhZmruPeREmVMA

this is the version of caliban and the witch I have which doesn't have missing letters/words etc

https://mega.nz/#!jQBFjYSL!C9WzgrJwbh9qeRfVWNs5DZba_5tK_tnF82QhKb2bXMk
i'll have the yami text ready soon
#45

swampman posted:

Oh in case anyone missed it, Furr provides a link to this proud lil pdf:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/tottlefraud.pdf

i remember tom of findland having a bit of a shitfit about tottle's book and calling it gross but he never really provided any convincing reasons as to why it's supposedly no good

e: here's trhe fixed version of People's War and Women's Liberation in Nepal, about 100x smaller file than the original lol

https://mega.nz/#!KFwEDRaA!QP47ksUPjDJnEeMrnpaNvFrLj_CxUlpzYpx9RJ46IwA

Edited by chickeon ()

#46

swampman posted:

Panopticon posted:
swampman posted:
Graziosi - clearly Snyder's chief "source" here - indeed makes these charges. But Graziosi cites no evidence at all, not a single reference of any kind for these statements or for the entire paragraph of which they are a part. Snyder had to know this, of course, just as anyone who reads Graziosi's article would know it. But Snyder cites these statements anyway. Of course Snyder's readers will not know that Graziosi has no evidence for these very serious charges.
actually graziosi cites "danilov, manning and viola, tragediia soveskoi derevni, 3:603, 611"
You've got your wires crossed. This paragraph you've quoted from Furr is on the question of whether peasants were required to return grain advances. That's not mentioned in the section you've pasted. Snyder cites Graziosi, "New interpretation," 8 for his evidence that peasants were required to return grain advances.



grain advance = seed grain

#47
its cool to read soviet policy documents attempting to maximise food production in their own wonkish way

contrasting this with SS orders in 1941:

"Infantry general staff has special orders with regard to the Donetz
area. Get in touch with him immediately. I order you to cooperate as
much as you can. The aim to be achieved is that when areas in the
Ukraine are evacuated, not a human being, not a single head of cattle,
not a hundredweight of cereals and not a railway line remain behind;
that not a house remain standing, not a mine is available which is
not destroyed for years to come, that there is not a well which is
not poisoned. The enemy must really find completely burned and destroyed
land. Discuss these things with Stampf straight away and do your
absolute best."

consensus of western liberals and east euro fascists is that these regimes were equivalent with the soviets being worse

this is snyder btw
https://twitter.com/TimothyDSnyder
#48

Panopticon posted:

swampman posted:

You've got your wires crossed. This paragraph you've quoted from Furr is on the question of whether peasants were required to return grain advances. That's not mentioned in the section you've pasted. Snyder cites Graziosi, "New interpretation," 8 for his evidence that peasants were required to return grain advances.

grain advance = seed grain

I don't agree. Seed grain refers to any grain is not intended for eating, but for replanting... the kind of ontological distinction that allows people to withhold grain from collection. The grain advances were given to agricultural labors to keep them alive and secure their labor, so they could collectivize and produce a really super harvest in 1933.

#49
if comparing SS orders with politburo orders is 'unfair' here is some excerpts from nazi bureaucracy food plan:

http://holocaustcontroversies.yuku.com/topic/1904/The-Nazi-Hunger-Plan-for-Occupied-Soviet-Territories

if its more 'fair' to compare the SS approach above with the NKVD here is a letter asking for simplified trials of traitors and collaborators.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/NKVD_Letter_%E2%84%96_00794/B

what a repulsive lie to equate the two
#50

swampman posted:

Panopticon posted:
swampman posted:
You've got your wires crossed. This paragraph you've quoted from Furr is on the question of whether peasants were required to return grain advances. That's not mentioned in the section you've pasted. Snyder cites Graziosi, "New interpretation," 8 for his evidence that peasants were required to return grain advances.
grain advance = seed grain
I don't agree. Seed grain refers to any grain is not intended for eating, but for replanting... the kind of ontological distinction that allows people to withhold grain from collection. The grain advances were given to agricultural labors to keep them alive and secure their labor, so they could collectivize and produce a really super harvest in 1933.


i see

#51

swampman posted:

Also jus a thought I had
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Holodomor&year_start=1930&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CHolodomor%3B%2Cc0



lol

#52
epic. thank you friends.
#53
now fix the missing letters in the libgen copy of Women, the State and Revolution
Soviet Family Policy and Social Life, 1917–1936 by wendy z goldman. id do it myself but im a lazy demanding piece of shit.
#54
Further reading about the holodomor is available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
#55
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor
#56
swampman, come back...

i just saw the d&d thread and you are doing god's work

(i don't really know enough to participate effectively outside of a handful of what's already been cited, like tauger, d & w, tottle, etc)

edit: it's at that part of the thread where throngs of whitenoise posters come out of the woodwork to congratulate themselves on not reading an author

Edited by Constantignoble ()

#57
I needed to do some important stuff first
#58

swampman posted:

I've got to go return some videotapes

#59

blinkandwheeze posted:

this tauger paper is really good and probably the best assessment of collectivisation i've read. it's also a good argument against the claims huey made in the other thread that collectivisation was on the whole a forceful and violent failure of policy

it also provides a good and direct critique of the weirdly common thesis in western scholarship that collectivisation was the practical enforcement of trotsky/preobrazhensky's idea of "primitive socialist accumulation"



I was 100% wrong, read too much bourgeois economic history and confused it for objective reality. Socialism requires complete humility and faith in the masses and I hope I live up to that even under bourgeois conditions

#60
Which one of you is "HorseLord" posting in swampmans thread in the bad place?
#61

tears posted:

Which one of you is "HorseLord" posting in swampmans thread in the bad place?


Please link the thread and I'll fire up rhizzone.xls and have an answer shortly

#62
ive been enjoying watching it: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3769585

u better deliver
#63

tears posted:

Which one of you is "HorseLord" posting in swampmans thread in the bad place?



i have a hunch i know HL's twitter account but i am not gonna post it because fuck snitches

#64
Theres been a few good posters but the thread has mostly been useful in adding some names to my gulag.txt doc

(also not seroiusly suggesting u post who it is, it was more from a "get that person an account!" perspective)
#65
Balls the size of Kazakh watermelons that you try to undermine opposing arguments by repeatedly bleating you want to see evidence for what amount to established and well sources historical facts, when all you have ever done is blather on about how, oh did you know Blood Lies says this? May I suggest you put down Furr's Blood Lies for one second and actually do one fucking ounce of research for your damn dumb self. Really, the only thing you've done in this thread is try to summon the ghost of, unfortunately not dead yet, Not Actually A Historian Furr by repeating his name in the mirrored glaze of your monitor and work Blood Lies into every single sentence. Just in the two or three substantive posts I've made in this thread I've used about two dozen different sources for cross references, all of which you have miserably failed to engage with, because face it you couldn't. You cannot possibly expect to be argued with in earnest when you always, always resort to ignoring something you cannot contest or come back with more tired old quotes from the same future toilet paper in book form. It's cowardly and intellectually bankrupt pseudo history, and if you ever want to actually learn something instead of being a victim of your own ignorance there's a whole beautiful world full of books with words in them that you could take a look at, some of which written by people not named Furr too! blood lies?!

PS: stop killing the forums Grover
#66

tears posted:

Theres been a few good posters but the thread has mostly been useful in adding some names to my gulag.txt doc

(also not seroiusly suggesting u post who it is, it was more from a "get that person an account!" perspective)


I've sent the results of the investigation to the incinerator.

#67
Thanks, I would really rather not do a "Let's Read Something Awful" thread.

e: except to note that someone actually got a 30 day probation for agreeing with me

Edited by swampman ()

#68
Lol and that was the best poster too (no offense swampman). Im pretty sure at least one of the people in that thread is a paid troll
#69
I almost want to buy an acct to read but nah

Edit: tho I could use to to xpost my naxalites thread so I might
#70
[account deactivated]
#71
[account deactivated]
#72
its me im the whoreslord
#73
speaking of stalin-related scholarship, the new issue of crisis & critique is entirely dedicated to koba, featuring articles by lih, losurdo, boer, et al (and here's the all-in-one)
#74
[account deactivated]
#75
i don't think so, though this person translated some random passages from it
#76
I thought about buying a copy of Losurdos Stalin off Spanish Amazon but while i could read it I don't think I have it in me to translate a book
#77

Constantignoble posted:

speaking of stalin-related scholarship, the new issue of crisis & critique is entirely dedicated to koba, featuring articles by lih, losurdo, boer, et al (and here's the all-in-one)


in spite of the clunky translation (and formatting) the losurdo article (Stalin and Hitler: Twin Brothers or Mortal Enemies?) is extremely sick

What does more adequately name the Third Reich: The category of
“totalitarianism” (that approximates Hitler to Stalin) or the category of
an “all-absorbing autocracy of race” (which refers to the regime of ‘White
Supremacy’ which reigned in the Southern States of the USA even in
the time of Hitler’s taking of power in Germany)? One thing is clear: One
cannot understand the Nazi vocabulary adequately if one only looks at
Germany. What is the “blood disgrace” of which ‘Mein Kampf’ warns – as
we have seen – if not the “miscegenation” that is condemned also by the
proponents of ‘White Supremacy’? Even the key term of Nazi-ideology
‘subhuman (Untermensch)’ is a translation of the American ‘Under Man’!

This is emphasized in 1930 by Alfred Rosenberg who expresses his
admiration for the US-American author Lothrop Stoddard: The latter has
to be merited with coining as the first the notion in question that emerges
as a subtitle (“The Menace of the Under Man) of his book that appeared in
New York in 1922 and three years later in a German translation in Munich
(“The Drohung des Untermenschen”). The “Under Man,” respectively
the Untermensch is what threatens civilization and to avert this danger
one needs an “all-absorbing autocracy of race”! If we start from this
rather than from the category of totalitarianism, it suggests itself that it
considers not Stalin and Hitler, but rather the white supremacists of the
Southern States of the USA and the German Nazis as twin brothers. And
Stalin opposes both, who not for nothing is sometimes hailed by Afro-
American activists as the “new Lincoln.”


#78
[account deactivated]
#79
i only just saw your thread s-man so i'm going through it now and will probably commit the grievous error of posting in there soon
#80
swampman is calm as fuck