MarxMadness @ MarxMadness @lemmygrad.ml

Posts

0

Comments

382

Joined

2 yr. ago

...you actually believe the USSR was executing... someone... if a particular woman didn't get a science degree?

I think you just made that up.

Besides, living standards and life expectancy in the former USSR are just now recovering back to levels they were at when the USSR broke up. It makes complete sense why people would look at the last 30 years and conclude things were better before.

How do you think unnecessary deaths and imprisonment in the Soviet Union were related to its egalitarian approach to education?

bolshevik states aren’t famous for freedom of career choice

What is your basis for this opinion? Have you read any books, articles, or interviews on this topic?

And how much career choice do I have, really, under capitalism? Tons of jobs don't even pay a subsistence wage, to say nothing of a wage that would let someone do basic things like own a home and raise a family. A bunch of other career paths are blocked by various types of non-merit barriers. If you do find a job that pays decently, you have very little control over the actual work and can usually be re-assigned to a different task with no recourse.

1. Vaguely hates communism because that's been the western cultural norm for the last century
2. Decides to talk to some people who have actually lived under communism; every single one confirms that your view of communism is wildly inaccurate and states their preference for communism
3. Goes back to hating communism anyway because both sides or something

It still doesn't make sense to view Trump as a harm reduction option for the rest of the world. There was no credible harm reduction candidate this time around.

Trump is still the guy who reversed detente with Iran and went to the brink of war with them twice. He's completely untrustworthy as a negotiator and doesn't actually care about any of the underlying issues, which undercuts what should be easy wins (detente with the DPRK) and makes tougher negotiations even harder. He started his second term by saying he wants to invade Canada and Greenland. He's fucking with the water rights treaty the U.S. has with Mexico. He's a return to naked imperialism, not a rejection of imperialism.

His only positive move so far was forcing Israel to accept a ceasefire, which they've now torn up without repercussion. That's something, but not much.

forcing Japan into an unconditional surrender, instead of conditional

And this part didn't even work -- the big Japanese demand was keeping the Emperor, and they were allowed to keep him.

An organization that would not have existed without U.S. support.

they could just go awol or force their resignation and go to jail

"I'm going to invade another country instead of going to jail" is not a sympathetic choice.

If I grew up poor and joined a gang because I didn't have a lot of good options, how much slack should I get for killing someone?

The answer isn't zero, but it's also not "these innocent troops were forced to do horrible things and none of it is on them."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey

The report also concluded that: "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

Objectively

The US uses economic coercion to force poor kids into joining.

A pretty clear parallel is joining a gang because you don't have a lot of other economic opportunity. While it's a decent argument for lighter treatment, it's not a defense to actually committing crimes.

If you want a nuanced discussion, start with explaining exactly how guilty different members of the U.S. military are when the military has a long history of committing atrocities, and since the 70s all members have signed up willingly.

If I were to willingly join the mob, how clean are my hands if I just drive guys around, or just patch them up after they're shot?

When have U.S. troops fought against imperialism?

And if you're hanging your hat on (reluctantly) being on the right side of one war 80 years ago, it's time for a hard look in the mirror.

be sincere and open, refrain from hurting others by thoughtless or sarcastic remarks and, in particular, refrain from irresponsibly criticizing comrades behind their backs. The proper attitude to any comrade’s mistakes is sincerely to remonstrate with him and criticize him to his face, out of concern for the comrade and a desire to be of help.

I had a thought the other day that was unfortunately spurred by disagreements in the group chat of an in-person org: I don't think leftist orgs should have group chats, message boards, or any other sort of inward-facing social media.

1. Social media (and big group chats are basically that) could not be better designed to produce misunderstandings and amplify conflicts. The "criticize someone to their face" part of this reading is how you minimize this.
2. Internal social media is essentially an ongoing, informal meeting. To those active on internal social media, your actual meetings seem to re-hash a lot of old conversations. To those who aren't active on internal social media, your actual meetings seem like jumping in halfway through an ongoing discussion.
3. In-person meetings have practical time and attention constraints. These force your group to efficiently address a manageable number of issues. Online, you can argue endlessly about everything under the sun. You will generate disagreements you don't need to have right now on topics increasingly far from what your group is actually doing in real life.

I think the corollary to "criticize people face-to-face" is "start with a one-on-one conversation, and don't spring a group call-out on anyone."

as an unremarkable captain of an unremarkable country on the fascist side of WWII (why him?)

there weren’t a ton of capable and experienced officers back then in the army.

This seems like a great answer to "why him?"

I don’t see the point that is trying to be made here

A common anti-communist narrative is that communist governments are not actually popular. The main point of highlighting CIA involvement with various "popular" opposition groups is that this narrative is heavily astroturfed.

A secondary point is that all the anti-communist stories about repression and show trials should be read in the light that yes, a hostile foreign government was in fact working with your domestic opposition groups to try to overthrow your government.

Enforcement is an inseparable part of the rule of law. If laws aren't enforced at all, your "laws" aren't anything more than moral judgments. If laws aren't enforced equally, you don't have a "rule" of law so much as a set of state-sanctioned persecutions.

There's a lot more to the topic than just enforcement, but to claim enforcement is anything but a crucial part of the mix is nonsensical.

A U.S. Supreme Court case on sterilization was cited by the defense at the Nuremberg Trials: Buck v. Bell.

"I'm not insulting you, I'm just saying you're writing word salad devoid of substance like a notorious quack"

Bernie had plenty of problems, but he would have been a significant step left of the party and he came pretty close to winning the 2020 primary. It's easy to forget the unique circumstances that allowed Democrats to pull off the fix: a highly popular former president to coordinate the drop out, a Republican opponent with an unprecedented ability to rile up the Democratic base, and Covid hitting right before Super Tuesday. Without any one of those things, I'm not sure they could have slipped in Biden. Imagine if that primary had played out in, say, 2004.

You can also look at local elections -- progressive District Attorneys, for example. They've ran (and a number have won) as Democrats, but significantly to the left of the mainstream Democratic candidates in their cities. And they've won by specifically appealing to voters who are moving left faster than Democrats on criminal justice issues.