TRUE communism!
TRUE communism!
Cross-posted from "TRUE communism!" by @Muaddib@sopuli.xyz in !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
473 comments
-
The millions and millions of peasants and workers who formed the absolutely committed base of the communist party yes. Here's a question for you: HOW did the Bolsheviks gain power? When the Tsarist regime was crushing and oppressing the workers, and after the February revolution when the bourgeoise transitional state was gearing up for another round of WW1, HOW did the Bolsheviks come out on top? Was there a magic crown they grabbed to take control of the revolution? Did they use communist mind control? So "the peasants ... democratically rejected [the] bolshevik clergy [sic] over and over again through the soviets back in 1919" ^[Citation needed] but the bolsheviks just overruled them... how?
This is the problem with a liberal-idealist understanding of the world which is not based in material reality, you don't think about things like that. The bolsheviks won BECAUSE they had the full, furious support of dozens of millions of workers and peasants, without which they could not possibly have defeated the White army or constructed a socialist state. The Soviet people worked tirelessly to build a society of technological wonders as well as the military power needed to defend it against a world of capitalist enemies. Enemies like the Polish fascists who invaded the USSR in 1921, annexing a massive region that was (and is today) part of Belarus and Ukraine. Do you think retaking these areas (and saving their populations from the advancing Nazis) was wrong of the USSR? Do you think these territories should be part of Poland today? Should Belarus and western Ukraine be re-annexed to the Polish state, which held them for less than twenty years?
Ukrainians
Six million Ukrainians fought in the Red Army in WW2, making up 23% of the Soviet Union's entire armed forces. The insignificant handful of traitorous fascist worms who sabotaged their own nation, collaborated with the Nazis and gleefully massacred Jews (and Poles!!) do not represent the Ukrainian people. This is what the 'Ukrainian Nationalists' have to say about their time 'resisiting the communists':
Which is the kind of thing the Red Army put a stop to.
Finns
Here I agree with Rosa Luxemburg: Granting Finland independence and not supporting the morally correct side in its civil war was objectively a mistake. The Red Army should have marched on Helsinki in 1918 but Lenin and the bolsheviks were too committed to the policy of the right of nations to self-determination, so they let it be taken over by nationalists who would go on to aid the Nazis in the siege of Leningrad that killed 1.5 million people. Don't look up the insignia used by the Finnish air force until 2020.
And the US used it's military power to end Imperial Japan - I guess that makes the US "anit-colonial" now, too?
Literally yes, that was an anti-colonial act, except that they immediately replaced Japanese imperialism in the eastern Pacific with US imperialism. Also what really drove the Japanese to surrender was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. The Japanese had hoped the USSR would act as a neutral arbiter for a conditional truce between them and the US, but when it was clear the USSR was going to roll up the fascists wherever they found them, the Japanese unconditionally surrendered to the US specifically to avoid the possibility of a communist takeover. The US then immediately put Japanese military leaders (i.e. war criminals) to work against the communists in the Phillipines, Korea, Vietnam and everywhere else in South-East Asia. Actions you presumably support, as those war criminals were deployed first and foremost against the worst of all liberal boogeymen, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Did you know the US invasion killed around 20% of the population of the Korean peninsula?
And? Are you perhaps suffering from some kind of insecurity, tankie?
Let me know when an anarchist gets to space.
Books:
- This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong
- Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend by Domenico Losurdo
- Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard by Douglas Tottle
- and if you really have the stomach for it, Blood Lies by Grover Furr - I warn you though, it's nearly 600 pages with heavy sourcing and referencing so your attention span might be challenged
-
Was there a magic crown they grabbed to take control of the revolution?
Yes, you creepshow excuse for a leftist, there was - it's called a soviet. You know... the democratic coucnils through which the vast majority of Russians democratically rejected your Bolshie heroes?
but the bolsheviks just overruled them… how?
The Bolshevik counter-revolution is now mere historical record, tankie. None of your shitty walls-of-text can change that.
This is the problem with a liberal-idealist
Oh, look... a reactionary cosplaying as a leftist is calling me a liberal again.
The bolsheviks won BECAUSE they had the full
Lemme guess... Lenin told you that in one of your fantasies while you were jerking off, right?
constructed a socialist state.
What socialist state, tankie?
who would go on to aid the Nazis
You mean when they went to war and reconquered the territory the Bolsheviks invaded in 1940?
Don’t look up the insignia used by the Finnish air force until 2020
Until 2020? Lol!
I guess that also means you don't actually know the history of that symbol, do you?
Literally yes, that was an anti-colonial act,
Holy crap, tankie... you are full of it.
No, tankie... waging wars against imperialist rivals doesn't make you "anti-imperialist."
Also what really drove the Japanese to surrender was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.
Again with the tankie insecurity. What's the matter, tankie? Still trying to "catch up" with western imperialism, are we?
Let me know when an anarchist gets to space.
Yeah... that excuses all the slave labour, eh tankie?
-
Lmao, someone shares historical facts and explains the material conditions of the world during the rise of the Soviet Union and you just lash out with no factual information, and decide to just complain about “walls of text” when they’re explaining things to you.
You are not looking for a discussion. You are not trying to improve and sharpen your understanding of the world or your rhetorical skills. You’re just throwing a tantrum when people try to explain ideas to you that don’t conform to your worldview.
And that’s exactly what makes you a reactionary. That’s the main difference between our two instances: We actually care about discussing things and educating people while you act like children refusing to eat the veggies on your plate. I’d say the moniker “anarkiddie” is accurate, but I don’t acknowledge people like you as anarchists.
-
You are not looking for a discussion.
Correct. I do not discuss squat with enemies.
And that’s exactly what makes you a reactionary.
Oh, look... the reactionary cosplaying as a leftist is calling me a "reactionary."
-
I do not discuss squat with enemies.
You're calling us your enemies because you refuse to actually read what we're saying. We have the same goal and the same people want to put us in prison or to simply shoot us. The only real ways in which our views put us on opposite ends of any political discourse are historical debates like the one you're running away from right now. If you can't even engage in the debate (which is valid, I honestly CBA to parse through all the primary sources to figure out which side of the debate is more correct about the nature of the soviet system or whatever either), then why are you taking such a strong position in the debate's conclusion? Why does the conclusion matter so much to you that you're willing to draw a line in the sand and declare us your enemies, but the process of getting there doesn't matter enough to read "walls of text" (God forbid you ever encounter a book)?
-
You’re calling us your enemies
I call you enemies because you are reactionaries cosplaying as leftists. I call you enemies because our ideologies are violently incompatible and diametrically opposed to each other.
See? No walls of text required, tankie.
-
Okay, but you see how you're arguing circularly now? Actually, I think if I try to trace back your epistemology here, it's worse than circular: it's just made up.
"We're enemies because we are diametrically opposed, and we are diametrically opposed because of a historical betrayal. The historical betrayal need not be justified because it's well-established fact and a matter of historical record, your evidence can't convince me otherwise"
That's what you sound like. It's intellectually dishonest. You've made a way to argue that is not only exhausting, but puzzling, because I can't see how you don't see what's wrong here.
-
Okay, but you see how you’re arguing circularly now?
Really? I'm the one "arguing circularly" here?
it’s just made up.
Really? The history of Marxist-Leninists enslaving the working class is "made-up" now? The history of Marxist-Leninists crushing leftist movements throughout it's sad history is "made-up" now?
It’s intellectually dishonest.
You tankies really have managed to combine the duplicitousness of the liberal with the self-serving zealotry of the fascist.
The liberal and the fascist can, of course, use the excuse they have been brainwashed into it since birth... but you cannot.
-
Really? The history of Marxist-Leninists enslaving the working class is "made-up" now? The history of Marxist-Leninists crushing leftist movements throughout it's sad history is "made-up" now?
Just break down to me, in simple terms, how you can defend these claims when earlier in this same thread you were dismissing the refutation of this argument (that cited multiple history books) by calling it "tankie walls of text". If you make a claim, then someone refutes it, but you refuse to even read their refutation, you're not in a position to then go back to saying that claim you made earlier is simply true. That's not how it works.
-
-
-
-
-
We don’t have to be enemies, but if you insist…
Don’t blame me if you find your back against a
-
Don’t blame me if you find your back against a
Considering the history of your ideology, tankie, you have even reason to fear that wall than I do.
-
Ok kiddo
-
-
-
-
-
-
Removed by mod
reason: Red Fash propaganda posters? WTF.
Damn, good to know that gay rights are fascist
Edit: My post above was quietly unremoved after I posted this, maybe this time the mod will actually deign to look at some of it
-
That pic of anarchists on the Berlin wall and the added context goes hard.
-
God this is exhausting to even look at.
Yeah... the circular logic tankies cling onto would exhaust me, too.
I would suggest... not doing that?
Nice posters, btw.
-
Here's the Red Army liberating Auschwitz, which I assume you would prefer didn't happen
-
So Zionists are not the only reactionary scumbags using the Holocaust as a mere propaganda prop, eh?
Don't worry... my opinion of tankies cannot go any lower - so no damage done.
-
THE USSR ENDED THE HOLOCAUST
TRUE OR FALSE
-
Oooooh... is somebody sore that they got caught out using the Holocaust merely as a prop to score cheap online political points?
Good thing you communicated that to me... I will be sure to use it against you at evry opportunity.
-
Answer this true or false statement: Did the Red Army liberate Auscwitz?
It's a simple question, just pick an answer. It's especially easy because I've already shown you a photo of what happened.
-
Why are you focusing on Auschwitz, tankie?
It's propaganda value, perhaps?
Why not Krakow-Płaszow (also liberated by the Soviet Army)?
Why not Kaiserwald (also liberated by the Soviet Army)?
Why not Gross-Rosen (also liberated by the Soviet Army)?
Why not Kauen (also liberated by the Soviet Army)?
Why not Majdanek (also liberated by the Soviet Army)?
I guess none of those has the propaganda "payload" of Auschwitz, eh? That being the only thing you care about is no surprise, tankie.
-
Are you trying to own me by bringing up even more good things the Red Army did??? Whatever, thank you for further proving my point comrade!
I was trying to make the question simple for you, but I see you can actually do basic research when you want to (even though you still haven't answered the simple yes or no question). Do you understand that without the Red Army, none of this that could have happened? That the Nazis would have killed everyone at all of those camps, and then kept moving eastwards, killing more and more people and plundering more and more land and resources, with absolutely no one to stop them? Are you getting this?
The Red Army could only exist because of the massive industrialization program implemented by the communist party of the USSR. No communists = no factories = no tanks = no end to the Nazi slaughter. The only system that has ever built industry at that pace, is the system of five-year plans issued by a central planning body with the authority to command how resources and workers are allocated! No other system in history has even come close! And even then, working at almost the fastest pace in human history, the USSR barely had time to build an army before the capitalists opened the gates of hell on them. So isn't it a little arrogant to just assume that you know better than they did how they should have organized themselves to be able to do that, while also somehow just never needing to apply authority in any way?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
473 comments