|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It doesn't even really have anything to do with environmentalism, I just felt like saying the Earth is a "closed system" would feel redundant compositionally. yeah starving millions of Ukrainian peasants to death is a common side effect of seizing the means of production.
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Holodomor wasn't an engineered genocide Yeah it was. Sorry your ideology is even more bloodthirsty than liberalism try to come up with something new.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
^^^Trump over Stalin for sure. Pener Kropoopkin posted:Not even "Holodomor" could be as bloodthirsty as the expiration rate of slaves in the Americas, but I don't see that called an engineered genocide. You've got more sympathy for the slavers slaughtered in Haiti. You are desperately trying to minimize the calculated and cruel murder of millions of people because it makes your politics look bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I am at least willing to admit that Mass Death happened, and it was a mistake. Which is more than can be said for the Liberal naysayers who outright ignore the crimes their ideological framework was loving built on over centuries and even up to the present day. I can't believe I'm being told that Liberal countries are less warlike while NATO-led coalitions are waging war on 2 continents, and in multiple countries at once. So you eagerly support an ideology that promulgated and eagerly justified (or simply covered up) tens of millions of deaths, slavery, unparalleled state terror, repression of personal rights, corruption, incompetence and imperialism (just ask Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland et al.!) all while entirely failing to live up to its ideological promise because you dislike some monolithic imagining of imperfect governance by consent? You are willing to ignore the vast and irreparable failings of Marxist-Leninism as well as its inevitable brutishness, yet characterize "liberalism" completely by human malice--this despite actually being susceptible to change and occasionally bettering the lot of the governed. Ultimately you are comparing an ad hoc amalgam of political traditions with a secular religion whose patron deity (its moral legitimacy) died for most in 1968 and whose promise of heaven was in fact a hell. I would suggest that you take what is a theory predicated on the epistemological foundations of positivism and judge it in those terms.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:not even robert conquest, a guy whose job it was to disseminate anti-soviet propaganda for the british government, calls the famine a genocide lol. the entire country was affected Robert Conquest argued with historical evidence that millions of people were intentionally starved to death (with the immense failures of collectivization and Soviet incompetence compounding the damage), so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I guess what you call the murder of millions is more important than the murder of millions?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:"It is regrettable that many of the advocates of the genocide thesis continue to claim Conquest to justify their position, despite his clearly expressed views on this matter. See the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute Conference on Holodomor on November 18, 2008. At the conference Nicolas Werth was asked by a participant in the conference, who had attended a lecture given by Wheatcroft, whether Conquest accepted the view that the famine was genocide. Werth strangely replied that ‘we all know in scientific circles the very complicated relations between Conquest and Wheatcroft’; he repeated this several times, but declined to reply to the question. Kul’chitskii more straightforwardly has explained that in June 2006 a Ukrainian delegation of experts on the Holocaust and the Holodomor met Robert Conquest in Stanford University and enquired about his views, and were told directly by him that he preferred not to use the term genocide (Kul’chitskii (2007), 176)." So what you call it is more important than the intentional murder itself? What the gently caress are you arguing?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:you keep saying it was intentional and there's this incredible consensus Except that there is widespread consensus and considerable evidence to support it and you are mulishly denying in much the same way it is denied that climate change is not real or that the holocaust never happened: hand waving and fantasy. The very evidence you cite to support this--Tauger--is aggressively criticized by Davies & Wheatcroft who you also cite ITT. You refute yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:from the very book you linked: nice meltdown bro. Davies and Wheatcroft completly dismissed in the "Years of Hunger" (which you cited) Tauger's assertion that he murder of millions of Ukrainians was a compete oopsie doodle (i.e. not absolving Stalin). Even those not 100% damning Stalin (a small group, for sure) think Tauger "accident" hypothesis is utterly wrong. So Tauger is the one guy who thinks that global cooling is a thing and that the
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
^^^I would never suggest that anticommunist countries do evil poo poo. Legitimacy in totalitarian regimes lies in ideology, particularly when it is millenarian. In this case, the ideology is folly. An argument against Marxist-Leninism is not necessarily "capitalism rulze 420 smoke weed." It's like there are more than two possible opinions... Homework Explainer posted:in the spirit of the thread's original subject matter i recommend a purge because i've had this argument so many times and literally no one arguing these anticom positions ever changes their mind. this is a waste of my time and yours Ah yes, liquidate the counterrevolutionaries, comrade. I agree: Marxist-Leninism has so discredited itself that it is not worth discussing with nonbelievers. Yudo fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:look man, there's an actual scholarly debate still going on about the famine. solzhenitsyn, a dude i consider to be a trash person, does not buy the genocide hypothesis. if you're going to compare it to holocaust denial there really isn't much else to say except "i disagree" and leave it at that The consensus is for intentionality. You are like those people who claim there is a "scholarly debate" about evolution and and climate change (hint: there isn't). I'd be happy to discuss whether or not the Terror was intentional, or perhaps the glories of the Khmer Rouge? How about agricultural collectivization in China and backyard steel production? What other examples of Marxist-Leninist and derivative governance can we discuss to convince the capitalist recidivist of his foolishness? It is millenarian. Like, by definition. Wiki posted:Millenarianism (also millenarism), from Latin mīllēnārius "containing a thousand", is the belief by a religious, social, or political group or movement in a coming major transformation of society, after which all things will be changed. Millenarianism is a concept or theme that exists in many cultures and religions. Yudo fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Jan 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:the dude made an incredibly stupid post to end a series of other incredibly stupid posts. he's trying to argue about marxism-leninism despite making comments that show he knows nothing about it So, you got nothing, then?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
So, Marxism and Marxist-Leninism is millenarian after all? Also, we keep bringing the pesky millions murdered by the USSR, Democratic Kampuchea, China, DPRK et al. because it evidences that the theory you are espousing is poo poo. e: This is great. Yudo fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Jan 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Does this mean that the far greater number of those killed by Capitalism - with even now several million people per year dying from easily preventable causes like starvation, preventable disease, malnutrition, etc, - means you think Capitalism is super poo poo? Communism would fix all of those things if someone would just try it!!!!111 Oh right, it was and it didn't: it made things worse, e.g. the 30-45 million starved to death in China from 1958-62 or the disaster the PDRE's agricultural folly exacerbated. Thinking that somehow, someway, now it will be different is a great act of faith; however, we are faithless. Ultimately, you have to sell us on the PSL and all I hear is the fallacious assertion that (a bumbling, facile and canting) criticism of capitalism is proof positive that Leninism/Stalinism isn't terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:- Lenin, in "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" Wait wait, the proud revolutionaries in this thread would endorse Leninism over Luxemburgism? I don't mean this as a criticism, I am genuinely curious.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:marxism-leninism has been proven a viable theory for lasting, successful revolution? Oh...well, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Luxemburgism is at least somewhat palatable to skeptics, if we are just spit-balling.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:You can't really understand Capitalism in the first place without reading Marx, tbqh. The labor theory of value--borrowing from and building on Ricardo and Smith--is very dated and not particularly edifying.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 08:03
|
|