volodya_ilich @ volodya_ilich @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

543

Joined

1 yr. ago

So, no mention of genocide?

Bye, won't be missed

Uyghers are in one

There is no post-2021 evidence whatsoever of human right abuses of any sort in the Xinjiang province against Uyghur people. You can try to find stuff but you won't find anything, I dare you to send me a single article that has an actual reference to actual evidence of post-2021 human right abuses. Send me an article and point to the actual reference within the article. I dare you.

People contest the Ukrainian genocide because it wasn't a genocide, it was a famine that affected multiple regions including Ukraine, and didn't have any ethnical component to it.

First, it's the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs

Then why did the Wikipedia article change its name from Uyghur Genocide to Persecution of Uyghur?

I use both. I like going into lemm.ee to counter some of the most blatant anticommunist propaganda, you'll see plenty of comments of mine answering people in this post.

Thanks for the info on the drag instance, wasn't aware of it, I'll check it out!

I'm a Hexbear user on another account, I don't know what you're talking about with "Drag's" instances, care to tell me?

And this is my OG account from when I joined Lemmy, I just decided that it was way too contaminated with mods in .world (biggest instance) not banning, say, denial of Palestinian Genocide and other very triggering things, hexbear is a much safer space in that regard so I decided to make an account to limit my exposure to shit like that

it was under central control, so they achieved state capitalism

"State capitalism is when central planning of the economy in a worker state without markets or surplus value extraction". Lmao.

Calling Lenin a bourgeois and making up a capitalist class out of thin air in the Soviet Union just proves again that you have done exactly 0 research or reading on the topic, you've just listened to someone online telling you that the USSR was state capitalism because central control, but you haven't read any theory of communism and capitalism and you haven't read any serious account of the functioning of the Soviet economy. Just disengage, you're proving that you're exclusively interested in putting "evil person" labels on certain historical leftist figures

A dumbass transphobe being admin in an instance I don't use (I'm Hexbear user) doesn't represent my ideology (Marxism-Leninism), and doesn't even represent the ideology of the people in said instance (there's been plenty of struggle sessions in said instance about the admin's transphobic behsviour and widespread condemnation).

I wonder if that literacy rate ratio change was the result of the mass exodus and death

You wonder that because you're uneducated on the topic. There were immense efforts in the Soviet society towards education and literacy. By the 70s, there were more female engineers inside the USSR than in the rest of the world (source: Albert Szymanski's "Human Rights in the Soviet Union"). The education policy and budget spared no expense to allow everyone to educate themselves, education was free to the highest level, and workers were encouraged to participate in lessons that in many cases the unions themselves organised at the workplace, or special lectures at late evenings for workers at universities.

Russia erosion of democracy and rolling back of human rights

Again proving that you're talking out of your ass. Before the Soviet Union was Tsarist Russia. I guess that's your beacon of human rights and democracy?

Tankies supported Trump, btw, his face was being promoted all over Hexbear

Lmao, I'm a Hexbear user and that's 100% not the case. Blaming Biden for the genocide under his administration isn't the same as promoting Trump, wish you were capable of understanding that

And they're an absolute dick for saying that, what's your point

I sourced my information, you can do the same instead of disregarding it because it doesn't match your ahistorical, uneducated, vibes-based conception of history.

Also, regarding "asking people who lived there", old people from ex-soviet republics consistently rank their previous socialist republics better on average than the modern counterparts...

The party supplanted the bourgeoisie and became them

The party didn't have nearly enough wealth, especially not intergenerational, they were as much public workers as doctors and teachers.

small group gain control of the means of production

Again proving you don't know shit about soviet historiography and democratic mechanisms

Source: my ass

Besides, what's with Stalin? I'm talking you about my ideals, not of the ideals of a Georgian man who died 70 years ago

Regarding corruption, I made a little writeup a while ago about why corruption is systematically overestimated in the USSR which, if you're arguing from good faith, you won't have a problem checking out. There was active fight against corruption in the Soviet Union (as you can see by the sign on the picture), the so-called "chistka", i.e. purges of party members, were part of said campaigns, and citizens could legally organise committees to review the functioning and accounting of local public services and institutions.

Regarding "lowering wages", you're simply wrong. That's just from the 60s, but material wealth of people rose at unparalleled speed in the USSR, faster than any country before that. And when the USSR economy stagnated in the 70s, real median wages kept rising at around 3.5% yearly

Literally the first phrase is a condemnation of the criminalisation of homosexuality

"I will overfixate on a debate on the academic definition of capitalism in order to be able to call X communist leader a capitalist instead of looking at the actual policy implemented" isn't an honest framework to deal with this. In a worker state without bourgeoisie, such as the soviet union, there is no such thing as surplus value because there's no capitalist class appropriating the wealth for itself. Instead, salaries are decided centrally, goods are provided at centrally-planned prices and NOT through the market principles. This is enough for me to claim that the USSR was socialist and not capitalist, and I refuse to engage in semantics rather than talking about policy: the USSR was materially and significantly different from any classical capitalist state, and much better by ANY actual metric than any capitalist state, and you're just trying to bend definitions to call your Marxist-Leninist of choice a capitalist

“ It is clear that Stalin had two courses open to him. He could seek a general coalition against Hitler, or he could come to an understanding with Hitler at the expense of the Western democracies. Stalin’s policy was guided by a profound conviction of the ultimate hostility of Nazi Germany, as well as by the hope that if the capitalist Powers became locked in mortal conflict, the Soviet Union might remain aloof, gaining strength while they tore one another to pieces. Certainly the principle of self-preservation lay at the heart of Moscow’s calculations ” Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm, Chapter 20, The Soviet Enigma pub 1948.

“ In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be ” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)

“ It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door ” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.

“ One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course ” Neville Chamberlain, House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact's signing)

“ We could not doubt that the Soviet Government, disillusioned by the hesitant negotiations with Britain and France, feared a lone struggle against Hitler’s mighty war machine. It seemed they had concluded, in the interests of survival, that an accord with Germany would at least postpone their day of reckoning ” Cordell Hull (U.S. Secretary of State), The Memoirs of Cordell Hull (Published 1948)

“ *It must be said that the Soviet Government, having little confidence in swift military aid from the Western Powers, chose to protect its borders, however odious such a pact might seem. One perceives in their choice the determination to secure time—time they evidently believed we were not prepared to give them.” Édouard Daladier (French Prime Minister), Address to the French Chamber of Deputies, Late August 1939

“ It seemed to me that the Soviet leaders believed conflict with Nazi Germany was inescapable. But, lacking clear assurances of military partnership from England and France, they resolved that a ‘breathing spell’ was urgently needed. In that sense, the pact with Germany was a temporary expedient to keep the wolf from the door ” Joseph E. Davies (U.S. Ambassador to the USSR, 1937–1938), Mission to Moscow (1941)

“ British officials, for all their outrage, concede that Stalin, with no firm pledge of Allied assistance, and regarding Poland as a foregone victim, decided that if the Red Army must eventually face Hitler, it should not be without first gaining some strategic space—and time ” Joseph P. Kennedy (U.S. Ambassador to the UK, 1938–1940),Private Correspondence, September 1939

Hopefully, you won't accuse such sources, i.e. western diplomats and politicians who actually experienced WW2, of being tankies

“ It is clear that Stalin had two courses open to him. He could seek a general coalition against Hitler, or he could come to an understanding with Hitler at the expense of the Western democracies. Stalin’s policy was guided by a profound conviction of the ultimate hostility of Nazi Germany, as well as by the hope that if the capitalist Powers became locked in mortal conflict, the Soviet Union might remain aloof, gaining strength while they tore one another to pieces. Certainly the principle of self-preservation lay at the heart of Moscow’s calculations ” Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm, Chapter 20, The Soviet Enigma pub 1948.

“ In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be ” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)

“ It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door ” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.

“ One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course ” Neville Chamberlain, House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact's signing)

“ We could not doubt that the Soviet Government, disillusioned by the hesitant negotiations with Britain and France, feared a lone struggle against Hitler’s mighty war machine. It seemed they had concluded, in the interests of survival, that an accord with Germany would at least postpone their day of reckoning ” Cordell Hull (U.S. Secretary of State), The Memoirs of Cordell Hull (Published 1948)

“ *It must be said that the Soviet Government, having little confidence in swift military aid from the Western Powers, chose to protect its borders, however odious such a pact might seem. One perceives in their choice the determination to secure time—time they evidently believed we were not prepared to give them.” Édouard Daladier (French Prime Minister), Address to the French Chamber of Deputies, Late August 1939

“ It seemed to me that the Soviet leaders believed conflict with Nazi Germany was inescapable. But, lacking clear assurances of military partnership from England and France, they resolved that a ‘breathing spell’ was urgently needed. In that sense, the pact with Germany was a temporary expedient to keep the wolf from the door ” Joseph E. Davies (U.S. Ambassador to the USSR, 1937–1938), Mission to Moscow (1941)

“ British officials, for all their outrage, concede that Stalin, with no firm pledge of Allied assistance, and regarding Poland as a foregone victim, decided that if the Red Army must eventually face Hitler, it should not be without first gaining some strategic space—and time ” Joseph P. Kennedy (U.S. Ambassador to the UK, 1938–1940),Private Correspondence, September 1939

Hopefully, you won't accuse such sources, i.e. western diplomats and politicians who actually experienced WW2, of being tankies

No, because that's revisionist propaganda. The USSR had proposed mutual-defense agreements with Poland, France and England, which all of them rejected. The USSR offered to enter a war against nazism as a response to the Munich agreements and the annexation of Czechoslovakia by nazis and Poland, but France and England (and obviously Poland) didn't want that. The Soviets went as far as to offer sending ONE MILLION soldiers to France, together with artillery, aviation and tanks, on exchange for a mutual-defense agreement with France and England. As was later discovered through released embassy wires, the French and English ambassadors were instructed not to make a peace agreement with the Soviets under any condition, but to pretend to be interested and to prolong the negotiations for as long as possible... presumably expecting Nazis to invade the Soviet Union, given that communists were their self-declared enemy and they held racial motivations to eliminate "the Slavic Untermenschen". It was convenient, letting the Nazis deal with the communists (since England and France had failed to eliminate Bolshevism during their invasion of Russia in the Russian Civil War), two birds with one stone.

The Soviet Union, which had only begun industrializing in 1928 with its first 5-year plan, compared to the century-long history of industrialization of Germany, simply didn't have the material means to single-handedly fight nazism in 1939. This is further proven by the fact that, after the invasion of the USSR by the Nazis, 27 million Soviet lives were lost in the struggle against fascism. They DESPERATELY needed every single year they could buy, and they DESPERATELY needed to avoid facing the Nazis in a one-on-one struggle. Without the lend-lease program, and without the western front, who's to say if the Soviet Union would have simply succumbed to Nazi Germany, and the horrifying additional extent of genocide that Nazis would have been able to perpetrate.

In case you don't believe me personally, I'll leave you another comment below this one with quotes of western politicians and diplomats of the period, showing the revisionism that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact has been subjected to.