|
HorseLord posted:"this guy who lived in the USA most of his life eventually didnt praise the USSR and stalin as much as he used to. it must be because he changed his mind and not because he was a high profile victim of the US government's domestic anticommunist efforts* - an actual real person in this thread Because there are no other reasons why Stalin might not be considered praiseworthy.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:29 |
|
|
Haha holy poo poo that owns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I have repeatedly called for the mass ridicule of libertarians. I will not stand for the implications that I am not for more extreme measures such as giving them wedgies! Cyberbully libertarians imo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Because there are no other reasons why Stalin might not be considered praiseworthy. Stalin is a bourgeois lie to further the imperialism of the fascist American state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Because there are no other reasons why Stalin might not be considered praiseworthy. are you seriously denying that paul robeson's career was destroyed by mccarthyism and that it made him cautious of it happening again note: he never once said he changed his mind, but he did say this: paul robeson posted:Whatever has happened to Stalin, gentlemen, is a question for the Soviet Union, and I would not argue with a representative of the people who, in building America, wasted sixty to a hundred million lives of my people, black people drawn from Africa on the plantations. You are responsible, and your forebears, for sixty million to one hundred million black people dying in the slave ships and on the plantations, and don’t ask me about anybody, please.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Really the tiny bit of popularity that libertarianism enjoys today is actually Stalin's fault; if he hadn't done such a terrible loving job as a leader of the world's premier communist nation then communism and socialism wouldn't be such huge boogeyman ideologies today among lower and middle-class people in capitalist nations. For every successful and smart move Stalin did 5-10 hosed up things to make up for it, and thus libertarianism grabbed hold within the unwealthy populations of capitalist nations instead of any number of pink or red ideologies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:are you seriously denying that paul robeson's career was destroyed by mccarthyism and that it made him cautious of it happening again Don't you agree that ruthlessly purging political dissenters is a good thing, though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
yeah honestly stalin should have nuked the white house
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
More of this please. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Really the tiny bit of popularity that libertarianism enjoys today is actually Stalin's fault; if he hadn't done such a terrible loving job as a leader of the world's premier communist nation then communism and socialism wouldn't be such huge boogeyman ideologies today among lower and middle-class people in capitalist nations. To be honest Stalin could have done nothing wrong and he'd still be evil because 'COMMUNISM' - that blood is on his hands or Mao's or any left-leaning leader is irrelevant. Blood is on the hands of all of the 'developed' nations in equal measure. It's just easier to big up the horrors of the Soviet bloc and its allies because it suits the goals of capitalist governments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
the best part of stalin's ostensible biography is the time he spent in Siberia during his own gulag years under the tzar living with the reindeer-herding animistic locals. he should've just married a siberian girl and settled out there on the frontier, herding and fishing and making babies. he was pretty dreamy as a young man, and an accomplished bank robber. marrying into a semi-nomadic Siberian community, maybe helping them defend themselves against the forces ofRoman von Ungern-Sternberg after WWI, would've saved everybody so much trouble and made for much more popular biopics. trotsky would've definitely done a much better job getting the Red Army in shape to face Hitler down the line, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:i like how the yank constitution has basically no human rights provisions but people say poo poo like this Big talk from someone whose country has no actual constitution and hence no human rights provisions possible in one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:To be honest Stalin could have done nothing wrong and he'd still be evil because 'COMMUNISM' - that blood is on his hands or Mao's or any left-leaning leader is irrelevant. Blood is on the hands of all of the 'developed' nations in equal measure. He'd be labeled as evil because 'COMMUNISM' but the propaganda machine wouldn't be nearly as effective without all of that blood. And if you don't need purges and poo poo to keep your government running and you don't wind up causing huge famines then more countries might have looked at communism as a viable solution, which would have further legitimized all socialist and communism-lite ideologies. Basically what I'm saying is that Stalin failed communism by being poo poo, thereby greatly enhancing the effectiveness of the US propaganda machine
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Big talk from someone whose country has no actual constitution and hence no human rights provisions possible in one. We do actually have a Human Rights Act now, but the Tories are trying to repeal it because it strikes down their right to discriminate against minorities. Hahahahah ah hah ha 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:We do actually have a Human Rights Act now, but the Tories are trying to repeal it because it strikes down their right to discriminate against minorities. Hahahahah ah hah ha Yeah any Human Rights Act that's possible to repeal ,it ain't doing much protectin'!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:He'd be labeled as evil because 'COMMUNISM' but the propaganda machine wouldn't be nearly as effective without all of that blood. And if you don't need purges and poo poo to keep your government running and you don't wind up causing huge famines then more countries might have looked at communism as a viable solution, which would have further legitimized all socialist and communism-lite ideologies. Why didn't this happen in Europe, though? I think the problem was pre-existing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:To be honest Stalin could have done nothing wrong and he'd still be evil because 'COMMUNISM' - that blood is on his hands or Mao's or any left-leaning leader is irrelevant. Blood is on the hands of all of the 'developed' nations in equal measure. It's just easier to big up the horrors of the Soviet bloc and its allies because it suits the goals of capitalist governments. There's also really nothing preventing them from lying. With this and their motivation in mind, bourgeois histories become worthless. You can't take what they've said and do a few small corrections and call it accurate, because it was all written to support an idea they decided on before they started. This is how you get funky poo poo like citing Ukrainians who fought for the nazis or Chinese "death tolls" calculated by comparing the actual population figures with a birth rate prediction that didn't come to pass. Throw it in the trash and start from the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
 HorseLord posted:yeah honestly stalin should have nuked the white house Stalin was too stupid to bring socialism to the west, would have resorted to violence like a brain-damaged animal. An interesting take on things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:He'd be labeled as evil because 'COMMUNISM' but the propaganda machine wouldn't be nearly as effective without all of that blood. But the West had done this, for centuries. Like, do you think history was a giant book of peace and love amongst mankind until Lenin/Stalin slid in and hosed things up? I don't even defend Stalin and his legacy but this is ridiculous. QuarkJets posted:and you don't wind up causing huge famines loving Stalin, not developing weather controls. I could understand blaming Mao's Great Leap Forward for the extent of the deaths of the Great Famine, but the Holodomor's terribleness was his ethnic targeting of the victims, not his decision one day to run into the fields and kick their crops to death for a giggle. QuarkJets posted:then more countries might have looked at communism as a viable solution, which would have further legitimized all socialist and communism-lite ideologies. You think Stalin being a good little kid would undo decades of oligarchs owning the media of the capitalist countries? Remember when America bought out the first Italian elections so the communists couldn't get in? Remember when America banned left-wing Filipino politicians from voting until after a bullshit trade deal was signed that gave away the Philippines' economy to American corporations? Communism could have been done perfectly and America would have done this poo poo. QuarkJets posted:Basically what I'm saying is that Stalin failed communism by being poo poo, thereby greatly enhancing the effectiveness of the US propaganda machine I agree with the second half, but Stalin is not the reason communism has lost. He is the reason the Russian Federation is such a pain in America's arse right now, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:He'd be labeled as evil because 'COMMUNISM' but the propaganda machine wouldn't be nearly as effective without all of that blood. like 99% of that blood didn't exist. If Stalin's government had killed as many as was often claimed, the USSR would have had a depopulation crisis large enough to end their civilization.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Like straight up, explain how you lose 77 million people out of less than 160 million in less than 15 years (alleged stalinocide + ww2) but the population doesn't actually shrink all that much did stalin replace them with cardboard cutouts to make places look fuller
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:like 99% of that blood didn't exist. If Stalin's government had killed as many as was often claimed, the USSR would have had a depopulation crisis large enough to end their civilization. okay. can you point me to any peer-reviewed scholarship on the subject that reaches this conclusion? 'the interwar famines and purges never happened' is a pretty significant claim for which I'd love to see the evidence. i've got institutional access to a lot of academic journals, even just the name of a historian working the subject would be a suitable start.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:did stalin replace them with cardboard cutouts to make places look fuller Now I'm just imagining Stalin running around Mother
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Many of the numbers are politicized but you're going to face a higher bar of skepticism if you want to bring them anywhere close to zero.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
zeal posted:'the interwar famines and purges never happened' is a pretty significant claim for which I'd love to see the evidence. I would love to see the evidence i made that claim. try replying to what I said not what you'd like me to have said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Why Should We Care About Property Rights? - the thread for Stalin's legacy apparently
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:Like straight up, explain how you lose 77 million people out of less than 160 million in less than 15 years (alleged stalinocide + ww2) but the population doesn't actually shrink all that much All the survivors had 6 babies. Population increases when babies reach adulthood. HTH
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Many of the numbers are politicized but you're going to face a higher bar of skepticism if you want to bring them anywhere close to zero. For normal people the 850k actually deliberately killed is enough of a tragedy but you spent the last 80 years sitting around going "I bet it was 20 million!" "i bet 40 million!" "no i bet 200 million!" so any actually possible figure is going to be too low for you to accept how does it feel that the highest number of prisoners in the USSR at any point is on par with America presently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:I would love to see the evidence i made that claim. if you don't want to share your sources that's fine, but it means this will only ever be a troll derail on an otherwise boring afternoon
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Many of the numbers are politicized but you're going to face a higher bar of skepticism if you want to bring them anywhere close to zero. From what I recall, fewer than a million people were straight-up executed. A lot of the deaths came from being sent to the gulag (which definitely increases one's chances of dying considerably, but isn't a direct death sentence), ethnic cleansing within the USSR, and things like the Holodomor, which no Stalinist is ever, ever going to blame the Soviet government for. "99% of the blood didn't exist" still only makes sense if you think people are claiming that Stalin killed, like, every single Soviet citizen, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:All the survivors had 6 babies. bloody welfare queens
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:and things like the Holodomor, which no Stalinist is ever, ever going to blame the Soviet government for. My view of both the Holodomor and Mao's Great Famine is that the famine itself was a tragedy of circumstance but that the awfulness of them is the ethnic targeting of the victims (Ukrainians in one, the Tibetans and North Chinese in the other).
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
don't feed into Ukrainian nationalist myth by pretending they were the only people to suffer in that famine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:But the West had done this, for centuries. Like, do you think history was a giant book of peace and love amongst mankind until Lenin/Stalin slid in and hosed things up? I don't even defend Stalin and his legacy but this is ridiculous. No, that's not what I'm saying at all you strawmanning bastard. Maybe go back and read my posts again? I'm saying that the propaganda machine was made significantly more effective by Stalin's fuckups. Because that's how propaganda works quote:loving Stalin, not developing weather controls. I could understand blaming Mao's Great Leap Forward for the extent of the deaths of the Great Famine, but the Holodomor's terribleness was his ethnic targeting of the victims, not his decision one day to run into the fields and kick their crops to death for a giggle. Another strawman argument? I'm not actually going down the road of suggesting that Holodomor was intentional genocide, like you seem to be implying. And trying to attribute the entirety of the 1932 Soviet famine to weather is simply laughable quote:You think Stalin being a good little kid would undo decades of oligarchs owning the media of the capitalist countries? Remember when America bought out the first Italian elections so the communists couldn't get in? Remember when America banned left-wing Filipino politicians from voting until after a bullshit trade deal was signed that gave away the Philippines' economy to American corporations? Communism could have been done perfectly and America would have done this poo poo. Oh god another strawman argument, jesus christ. I never said that Stalin should be "a good little kid" or whatever the gently caress you're trying to imply with that loaded statement. Remember how I said that the capitalist propaganda machine would be in full swing regardless but that its effectiveness was enhanced by Stalin's actions? Of course you don't, because you apparently didn't actually read my post. quote:I agree with the second half, but Stalin is not the reason communism has lost. He is the reason the Russian Federation is such a pain in America's arse right now, though. Not the sole reason, no. My argument is that he played a significant impeding role.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Why Should We Care About Property Rights? - the thread for Stalin's legacy apparently Page 1: Actually human rights should probably take priority. Page 24: Actually gently caress those too haha.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
"stalin's actual fuckups" are all things that the western bourgeois neither understood, or would see as bad things if they did. so that's why they resorted to making so much poo poo up case in point: 1930s relations with other political tendencies. Pushing the anti-socdem stance harder than the anti-nazi one would be a much bigger mistake to western eyes if America's view on nazism wasn't "Oh cool, I like killing ethnic minorities and airships too"
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:don't feed into Ukrainian nationalist myth by pretending they were the only people to suffer in that famine. I'm happy to be corrected - who else was affected?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm happy to be corrected - who else was affected? Belarus, parts of european Russia, and Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan got it the most severe of all of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:"stalin's actual fuckups" are all things that the western bourgeois neither understood, or would see as bad things if they did. so that's why they resorted to making so much poo poo up Stalin's actual gently caress up was that he couldn't even get socialism right and had to leave the job to superior western nations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:29 |
|
|
HorseLord posted:"stalin's actual fuckups" are all things that the western bourgeois neither understood, or would see as bad things if they did. so that's why they resorted to making so much poo poo up I take it you regard being a paranoiac driven to murder all his old comrades as more of a character flaw than a gently caress up, per se.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2015 20:52
|
|