AES_Enjoyer @ AES_Enjoyer @reddthat.com

Posts

0

Comments

355

Joined

5 mo. ago

if you spin it hard enough any war is a genocide

Not really. Genocide implies an intent to eliminate a given culture or ethnicity, most wars haven't had that intention, e.g. most civil wars.

Choosing where to stop providing historical context is a deliberate and political choice. Why stop at 1950 and not at 1948-49 South Korea's extremely violent repression of South Korean socialists? How about we go five years back to when Korea was colonised by Imperial Japan and liberated by Soviet troops, making locals very prone to being socialist but not being allowed in the south thanks to US support?

Wanna go a bit further back? How about South Korea having grassroots socialist uprisings and murdering tens of thousands of socialists between 1948 and 1950? Look up "Jeju uprising".

Korea, a predominantly agrarian country with very poor conditions, was ripe for a communist revolution after seeing the success of the People's Liberation Army in China and the Soviet Union in freeing them from Japanese colonialism.

The article doesn't source literally any of these claims...

Literally the three examples you brought are wartime extreme measures, either in a war that took the lives of 27 million soviet citizens (WW2) or in a war against absolutism and tsarism in which 17 western countries invaded the RSFSR for the sin of being communist. Funny how you can't find examples after the situation normalised in the Soviet Union and it stopped being under immediate threat of genocide at the hands of Nazis?

the US currently has 1.8 million incarcerated people. In 1931, there were 2 million in gulags

Sorry, my numbers were off by 10%. Still, we're comparing the eve of WW2 and the process of collectivisation of land, to a period of relative quiet and global power by the US. Not relevant?

Pacifism, unfortunately, is dead in this new age of multilaterlism and worldwide resurging authoritarianism.

Great, let's spend the budget in weapons right before the far right authoritarians reach all governments in Europe! Can't see that going wrong! After all, Europe has never done anything bad militarily!

Everything you've said is true, but keep in mind that Ukraine isn't exactly an LGBT paradise. Hate crime against gay people isn't recognised by law, and for the past years most pride parades ended up with people hospitalised as a consequence of far right attackers.

Idk what the AI used as source, but most western sources on the Soviet Union are intentionally biased against it.

In the Soviet Union, the union membership rates were astronomically high, higher than essentially anywhere else at the time. Unions provided training after work for workers who wanted a basic education. For workers who wanted higher education while working, the concept of "night degrees" was conceived, in which workers could attend special classes at night in university, with reduced number of lessons to be given a certain title. This is still a thing in post-soviet states like Russia.

I can confirm all of this. Sources: Albert Szymanski's "Human Rights in the Soviet Union", A. Zverev's "Lo que percibe el trabajador soviético además de su salario", and personal accounts from Russian and Ukrainian acquaintances.

Sorry I brought facts to the conversation

Sorry to reply late.

You were distributed to a place by the state after finishing your education

Only really true for higher education. It was seen as a sort of "social payment" in exchange for the free education. Better than tuition loans IMO.

labor book (USSR had such a document)

Uhhh... Do you think that doesn't exist in the west right now? What do you think the SCHUFA does in Germany? Do you seriously think high tech companies don't have a gray-legal-area history of your employment? At least back then it was a thing you could check...

you could get such a "flattering" characteristic by a superior not liking you

...as opposed to capitalism, where you'll be left unemployed and without a wage if your boss doesn't like you. What do you prefer?

Being unemployed for too long was literally, seriously, illegal in the USSR

Housewives existed, what are you talking about?

The only way to obtain an income in the Soviet Union was throughout work or throughout a pension (think widows, disabled, or retired people). This was by design, and it's in my opinion a moral good. You don't have any capitalist owner exploiting the profits generated by their workers. You have a system in which everyone contributes to the society. How is that not positive?

German after the war, being Jewish in a wrong period of time) had problems finding a place that would accept them

Colour me surprised: there were racist people in the mid-20th century?! I'm sure that's exclusive to the Soviet Union!

conditions very bad by US measure

Tell that to the millions of unemployed and homeless in the USA.

The average material conditions in the Soviet Union, a country that begun to industrialize in 1929, were worse than in the USA, the literal core of world colonialism and imperialism which relies on exploited labour all over the global south, which industrialised in the 19th century. Hmmm, I wonder why that was...

it took one google search

"It took one google search to find unsourced claims against the greatest geopolitical enemy of my country"

centralized labour programs

What exactly are you talking about?

liquidation of foreign ethnic groups

Nothingburger made up by the west. The greatest possible claim against any ethnic group is the relocation of some minority in Crimea (I think Tatars) in the context of WW2 as a result of the paranoia against nazis, nothing compared to the Japanese concentration camps in the US dedicated to one specific ethnicity.

and militarization of labour

Again, what do you mean?

This isn’t even counting the estimated 10 million or so people in forced labour gulags

At the height of the GULAG system, there were fewer prisoners than currently in the USA. Forced labour was a bad thing, I agree, but it was nothing compared to that of modern western countries such as the USA.

They don't need violence from the left to become fascists, they can do it by themselves.

They win no matter who wins any given election

Yes, because both parties in power in the US fundamentally stand for the same geopolitically. Geopolitics are mostly bipartisan in the US.

As an EU citizen, thats laughable. German police was very recently beating up women in a pro-palestine protest, and there are plenty of jailed journalists.

The USSR didn't have any limits to choosing an employment since shortly after WW2, what are you talking about? By the late 70s, around 10% of positions in the economy were vacant and there was full employment, and people weren't forced to work anywhere. The average unemployment duration was 15 days.

Please, what's your source on your claim?

The only thing new is it's the US doing it from across the world

Bahahahahahahhaa

Go ask a Vietnamese or a North Korean what they think of that statement, lmao

Did not call you a bot

Sorry, assumed that because of the plonk, what did you mean by that then?

pro russian

I'm not "pro-Russian" except in terms of ethnicity. Currently there's pervasive and state-supported russophobia all over the western world, and I consider myself anti-racist. Regarding the Russian government, not only do I think it's on a downwards fascist spiral, oppressing women, LGTBQ and minorities, I have loved ones directly suffering under the Putin regime.

You call my lack of nuance, but as a western-european socialist, what's the nuanced alternative? Supporting the military rearming of the western genocidal empire currently funding genocide and neocolonialism? I'm not "in favour" of the Russian invasion of Ukraine per-se, I just understand that it's the necessary consequence of imperialist struggle to see who controls the former Soviet block's sphere of influence. The Russian bourgeoisie, born in the 90s' plundering of the formerly state-owned economy, won't accept subservience to North American and Western-European capital, so it naturally revolves against that.

The west has been, despite the agreements of the 90s, pushing NATO further east, and funding and staging colour revolutions all over the former eastern block. Given the current Russian lack of soft power, the only alternative to western control (at best, as in the case of Poland) and colonialism (at worst, as in the case of the Ukraine resource extraction deal) is Russian military intervention. It's a sad state of affairs, but the Russian bourgeoisie tried to establish economic links with Europe and it wasn't allowed to do so, with tensions peaking after the US-sponsored blowup of Nordstream.

My analysis is that Russian militarism is the only tool the Russian bourgeoisie has been allowed to maintain its sphere of influence. My proposal is the rapprochement of Western Europe with Russia to defuse the tensions, and to stop trying to destroy Russian influence in its neighbouring regions, because as bad as Russia is, I don't think it's a solid strategy for peace that Russia would, for example, start soft coups in Mexico or Guatemala (just as a comparison). Creating other routes could perfectly well defuse militarism in Europe from both sides which, as a male below 30, I see desirable (since I dont wanna die in imperialist war).

Now please tell me what part of my analysis is lacking nuance. You may disagree, but I don't think lack of nuance is my problem.

Must be convenient being a European lib and discarding everyone further left than you as a "Ruzzian troll bot". I also haven't fucking commented or posted in the previous month essentially, if you actually go through my account history, but go ahead with your thought-terminating clichés. Seriously, the "Russian bot" is the "woke" of libs, just a series of words you repeat to discard information that doesn't suit your preconceived notion or your point of view.

For reference, I'm a Spaniard who voted for Podemos since they appeared in the political spectrum, and militant in a socialist org in my homeland. But whatever floats your boat.