Curious as to why they defend the USSR so often if the USSR was never actually bad.
These people will one second point out the USSR wasn't communist, and then the next second defend the USSR to the bitter end and deny any of the bad things that happened.
they reveals right there they're defensive about it because they know it was actual communism.
so I originally made this post. I wanted to get it to the top of all alltime, which is 46 votes. The site is so slow that they noticed 12 votes in an hour and an admin removed it.
This story is really about low quality women losing low quality men to sexbots. If you gals can't compete with sexbots and are upset about losing the kind of guys that would use them than that means you are ugly old cunts who no man will ever want or love.
Soviet famines of the early 30s weren't intentional either, that's pretty obvious if you don't have an axe to grind.
But the Irish famine had a strong natural component, the potato blight - while the Soviet famine was a series of management fuckups during a massive ground-up reorganization of how agriculture and industry worked in the USSR. Neither famine is intentional, but one can be described as man-made.
No, not really. Not to say that there wasn't resistance to the collectivization system because there was a lot. But resistance is relatively easy to deal with, and Soviets were good at that part of the job.
This is USSR in the 1930s. Anything that the government wants they can appropriate by force, and what the people want doesn't matter. Cooperation is mandatory.
The Soviets let millions of Russians (people seem to forget that there were other grain producing regions in he USSR) and Ukrainians starve after they mismanaged the changeover in how agriculture worked in the country, and then enforced quotas by seizing grain despite a shitty harvest to keep the country's cities and factories fed. There were a lot of components to it, and a lot of small, large, and incomprehensible cruelties. For example, Stalin maintained an "everything is fine" facade during - and even sold grain for foreign industrial machinery and specialists while people were starving in the countryside. On the other hand, there was some prescience to his brutal calculus, because this industrialization (and the collectivization was part of it) is ultimately what gave Soviets their victory in ww2 - and with it their survival.
The Soviet response to the shortages in the wake of the collectivization drive is clearly a crime and a human rights debacle. One of the great injustices of history. But it had nothing to do with a conscious effort to exterminate Ukrainians. They were just unlucky to live in the breadbasket of the USSR.
The Irish famine the first time around was natural, but the second time around it was man made when the English lords made the Irish farmers replant with blight affected potato, making the second year of blight much worse. While it probably wasnt a deliberate action to exterminate the Irish, it was wilfully negligent at the least.
I studied the Ukrainian Famine for a while and from what I gathered was that the answer to if it was politically motivated to crush Ukrainian nationalism is a resounding and clear "maybe?? Shrug."
There was a almost near total confiscation but it's wildly unclear if it was directed by someone from or near the top, if the local commisars were inflating crop yields and taking all the crops to cover their asses, if the local Moscow installed party leaders saw it as a tool to make their jobs easier both above and below their rank, or if the leadership in Moscow was too worried about the Urban Russians making the whole Supreme Soviet the next Romanovs.
Some of the reports I read years ago were clearly works of outright fiction, along the lines of "hey we're doing a bang up job here, minus this little famine so you might want to send a little help." Some of the higher ups seemed concerned about the state of affairs, though connecting that to any concrete action was difficult. But, this being the USSR those could've been dictated to be written as such to give political cover, and it really was a tool to crush the nationalists. It's not like the USSR was big on transparency like ever.
The leadership in Moscow had a single priority - rapid and massive industrialization. That was the driver for collectivization in the first place, the old system tied up too many people in agriculture. The food was seized from the grain producing regions to keep the cities and factories going, regardless of local damage that would result.
As for nationalism... eh. After all the bloodletting of the 20s, most of the ones with teeth were long gone. And in any case, it's the urban centers that were always the centers of Ukrainian nationalism and intelligentsia - but the millions of Russians (some areas of Russia were also hit hard) and Ukrainians that died in the famine tended to come from the country.
Pretty much what I was trying to get at. While the scale and damage was comparable to the Holocaust in many ways, equating the same amount of malice between the two seems disingenuous from my research. It's no comfort that millions died from incompetent leadership rather than thought out policies, but I think institutional malice should be considered when reviewing events from a historical perspective.
Soviet actions in the early 30s can still be criminal and a humans rights debacle without the genocide label. Genocide is a deliberate attempt at extermination. That's just not what happened.
That's my take. A lot of the actions and inactions of the USSR are damning as a viable and effective ward of the people they controlled, which is why it could not survive one half assed coup.
But the argument against is fairly analogous as well.
Cormac Ó Gráda disagreed that the famine was genocide. He argues that "genocide includes murderous intent, and it must be said that not even the most bigoted and racist commentators of the day sought the extermination of the Irish"
No, it's more akin to jews being exterminated in camps, vs the Soviet POWs dying en masse due to shitty conditions and lack of food. And yeah, both suck but clearly there is a difference, and we don't count the massive number of dead Soviet prisoners - 57% of whom died, around 3.3 million in total, as part of the Holocaust.
These guys arguing over who is a real communist is like takfiris arguing over who is a real Muslim, except that nobody from Raddle is going to chop anyone's head off.
41 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-11-26
You're not shit next to me. My genes are just light years superior to yours and I don't even need to look at you.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Lamza 2017-11-26
> The USSR was not really socialism, it was state capitalism.
Where have I seen this before?
1 StingAuer 2017-11-26
Lenin said it IIRC
1 pizzashill 2017-11-26
Curious as to why they defend the USSR so often if the USSR was never actually bad.
These people will one second point out the USSR wasn't communist, and then the next second defend the USSR to the bitter end and deny any of the bad things that happened.
they reveals right there they're defensive about it because they know it was actual communism.
1 CondeTrocola 2017-11-26
1 dood98998 2017-11-26
Just discovered this one, this is the gift that keeps on giving. I assume the final form for tankies is state capitalism.
1 shitpost953 2017-11-26
so I originally made this post. I wanted to get it to the top of all alltime, which is 46 votes. The site is so slow that they noticed 12 votes in an hour and an admin removed it.
https://raddle.me/f/crypto/moderation_log
Then the admin that removed it just reposted it in /f/communism instead
1 Awayfone 2017-11-26
Is saddle the leftist voat?
1 shitpost953 2017-11-26
kindof.. it's where the people from /r/leftwithsharpedge went so they could be edgy and make idle threats in peace.. formerly radd.it
1 shitpost953 2017-11-26
kindof... it's where the kids from /r/leftwithsharpedge went so they could be edgy and make idle threats in peace.. formerly radd.it
1 zahlman 2017-11-26
What is the f supposed to stand for?
1 Gothmog26 2017-11-26
Christmas Story fudge
1 shallowm 2017-11-26
Serious answer: forum.
1 xoiz 2017-11-26
1 dood98998 2017-11-26
Tankies and Trumpsters are doing their damnedest to make horseshit theory a thing! Maybe they're all secretly R A D I C A L C E N T R I S T S
1 200thacct 2017-11-26
u/eccentricvibe u/nightqueenandvervain u/olbluejeans
This story is really about low quality women losing low quality men to sexbots. If you gals can't compete with sexbots and are upset about losing the kind of guys that would use them than that means you are ugly old cunts who no man will ever want or love.
1 neveryousay3 2017-11-26
Raddle - when you are too much of a tankie for r /communism.
1 ikitomi 2017-11-26
Ehh I've even seen people deny Holodomor on r@ and rcommies.
They're a very common group to say statistics they don't like are wrong.
1 kermit_was_right 2017-11-26
Statistics aren't really what this debate is about.
1 StingAuer 2017-11-26
Tankies are really bad :(
1 Trapsarntgay1 2017-11-26
Thats bcuz irish aren't people.
1 hotblondeboob 2017-11-26
It was because the famine wasn't intentional
1 kermit_was_right 2017-11-26
Soviet famines of the early 30s weren't intentional either, that's pretty obvious if you don't have an axe to grind.
But the Irish famine had a strong natural component, the potato blight - while the Soviet famine was a series of management fuckups during a massive ground-up reorganization of how agriculture and industry worked in the USSR. Neither famine is intentional, but one can be described as man-made.
1 hotblondeboob 2017-11-26
Didn't they let them starve since they didn't cooperate with the USSR and wanted to keep their farms themselves?
1 kermit_was_right 2017-11-26
No, not really. Not to say that there wasn't resistance to the collectivization system because there was a lot. But resistance is relatively easy to deal with, and Soviets were good at that part of the job.
This is USSR in the 1930s. Anything that the government wants they can appropriate by force, and what the people want doesn't matter. Cooperation is mandatory.
The Soviets let millions of Russians (people seem to forget that there were other grain producing regions in he USSR) and Ukrainians starve after they mismanaged the changeover in how agriculture worked in the country, and then enforced quotas by seizing grain despite a shitty harvest to keep the country's cities and factories fed. There were a lot of components to it, and a lot of small, large, and incomprehensible cruelties. For example, Stalin maintained an "everything is fine" facade during - and even sold grain for foreign industrial machinery and specialists while people were starving in the countryside. On the other hand, there was some prescience to his brutal calculus, because this industrialization (and the collectivization was part of it) is ultimately what gave Soviets their victory in ww2 - and with it their survival.
The Soviet response to the shortages in the wake of the collectivization drive is clearly a crime and a human rights debacle. One of the great injustices of history. But it had nothing to do with a conscious effort to exterminate Ukrainians. They were just unlucky to live in the breadbasket of the USSR.
1 hotblondeboob 2017-11-26
I see, thanks for the detailed answer. Did you look for /r/askhistorians and take a very dark turn or what?
1 kermit_was_right 2017-11-26
No, I just have a seriousposting problem, and an interest in the time period.
1 PM_ME_REDHEAD_BABES 2017-11-26
The Irish famine the first time around was natural, but the second time around it was man made when the English lords made the Irish farmers replant with blight affected potato, making the second year of blight much worse. While it probably wasnt a deliberate action to exterminate the Irish, it was wilfully negligent at the least.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2017-11-26
I studied the Ukrainian Famine for a while and from what I gathered was that the answer to if it was politically motivated to crush Ukrainian nationalism is a resounding and clear "maybe?? Shrug."
There was a almost near total confiscation but it's wildly unclear if it was directed by someone from or near the top, if the local commisars were inflating crop yields and taking all the crops to cover their asses, if the local Moscow installed party leaders saw it as a tool to make their jobs easier both above and below their rank, or if the leadership in Moscow was too worried about the Urban Russians making the whole Supreme Soviet the next Romanovs.
Some of the reports I read years ago were clearly works of outright fiction, along the lines of "hey we're doing a bang up job here, minus this little famine so you might want to send a little help." Some of the higher ups seemed concerned about the state of affairs, though connecting that to any concrete action was difficult. But, this being the USSR those could've been dictated to be written as such to give political cover, and it really was a tool to crush the nationalists. It's not like the USSR was big on transparency like ever.
1 kermit_was_right 2017-11-26
The leadership in Moscow had a single priority - rapid and massive industrialization. That was the driver for collectivization in the first place, the old system tied up too many people in agriculture. The food was seized from the grain producing regions to keep the cities and factories going, regardless of local damage that would result.
As for nationalism... eh. After all the bloodletting of the 20s, most of the ones with teeth were long gone. And in any case, it's the urban centers that were always the centers of Ukrainian nationalism and intelligentsia - but the millions of Russians (some areas of Russia were also hit hard) and Ukrainians that died in the famine tended to come from the country.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2017-11-26
Pretty much what I was trying to get at. While the scale and damage was comparable to the Holocaust in many ways, equating the same amount of malice between the two seems disingenuous from my research. It's no comfort that millions died from incompetent leadership rather than thought out policies, but I think institutional malice should be considered when reviewing events from a historical perspective.
1 kermit_was_right 2017-11-26
Soviet actions in the early 30s can still be criminal and a humans rights debacle without the genocide label. Genocide is a deliberate attempt at extermination. That's just not what happened.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2017-11-26
That's my take. A lot of the actions and inactions of the USSR are damning as a viable and effective ward of the people they controlled, which is why it could not survive one half assed coup.
1 kermit_was_right 2017-11-26
Holodomor is only considered a genocide by butthurt Ukrainians who aren't people either.
Makes you think.
In reality, there are definitely people pushing for a genocide label on that famine too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Genocide_question
Because the British response was... questionable.
But the argument against is fairly analogous as well.
1 glmox 2017-11-26
they deserved it for being class traitors anyway
1 OnionBits 2017-11-26
Say it with me kids:
POP OFF, TANKIE!
1 glmox 2017-11-26
all im doing is being honest about the ukrainian question
1 OnionBits 2017-11-26
POP OFF TANKIE
1 Neon_needles 2017-11-26
Equals
1 kermit_was_right 2017-11-26
No, it's more akin to jews being exterminated in camps, vs the Soviet POWs dying en masse due to shitty conditions and lack of food. And yeah, both suck but clearly there is a difference, and we don't count the massive number of dead Soviet prisoners - 57% of whom died, around 3.3 million in total, as part of the Holocaust.
1 captainpriapism 2017-11-26
"jews definitely died but it was famine and typhus and allied bombing of supply lines" is the appropriate comparison i think
1 [deleted] 2017-11-26
[deleted]
1 Redactor0 2017-11-26
These guys arguing over who is a real communist is like takfiris arguing over who is a real Muslim, except that nobody from Raddle is going to chop anyone's head off.
1 takaci 2017-11-26
It is painfully ironic that both the far left and far right both have a "holo-" genocide that they both believe is made-up