Uh… This is coming from the folks who said “he who does not work, neither shall he eat” during a famine so… uh… yeah, that’s not the flex you think it is.
Edit: And in case anyone is wondering, this gets worse with context.
As opposed to the current time of surplus and abundance where it is if “you don’t work you don’t eat”. Which is morally a lot worse considering there is more than enough food to feed everyone
Yeah… no. Very little in modern history is morally worse than Soviet management of the famine of 1930-1933 (which they caused, too). That shit was at least on par with the Irish Famine in terms of sheer moral depravity.
Let me get this straight. To you, a famine produced unintentionally through policy that spiked class war and originated primarily from rich farmers sabotaging the crops and livestock as a response to their lands being collectivized in the first successful collectivization of a country in the history of the Earth, is to you as morally depraved as the English colonists literally starving Irish to death because of colonial and racist beliefs?
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
You won’t dignify me with a response because you’re simply replicating propaganda that you’ve heard on Reddit, and you can’t argue from knowledge but from vibes.
I don’t know choosing to not feed people when there is enough food to feed everyone seems a lot worse than choosing which people to not feed during a time of famine.
Obviously more people die from the famine, but at least that’s due to a lack of resources and not a manufactured scarcity
I can’t find a way to phrase this that’s not offensive, so I’ll just go ahead: Are you being obtuse or do you just not know what you’re talking about? Because if it’s the latter you should at least take a scroll down this Wikipedia page before you talk about this stuff. However, I will say that sacrificing millions of people for holy communism (which is what happened; the famine was a choice) isn’t much better than sacrificing them for holy property rights. Not asking for foreign aid and denying a famine even existed was also inexcusable.
They also created the famine by decentralizing agriculture and planning, but at least that sort of people learned their lesson from it and didn’t repeat the exact same blunder in China years later, right?
And this was said about able-bodied parasites such as owners of the means of production, shareholders, landlords, and others living off society on non-labor income. At the same time, the population received old-age and disability pensions, maternity leave for women in labor and a huge number of social payments and compensations. Too bad most believe Goebbels propaganda and don’t study history.
And this was said about able-bodied parasites such as owners of the means of production, shareholders, landlords, and others living off society on non-labor income.
And Ukrainians, don’t forget Ukrainians. I know enough about early Soviet history to know that Stalin was a cold-blooded murderer. Not that the rest of the Communist Party was full of upstanding global citizens, but Stalin was particularly egregious.
Here we go again with the false claims of hunger directed particularly against Ukrainians.
The Bolsheviks gave Ukrainians for the first time in history borders of their own, representation of their own in politics and the right to study for free and in their own language. There are literal letters between Rosa Luxembourg and Lenin in which Rosa argues against Ukraine getting its own representation as a nationality, and Lenin argues in favour of it (which ultimately was done).
The president of the Soviet Union after Stalin was Ukrainian. There is no precedent, no continuation, and no following episode of hunger spiking particularly in Ukraine as it more-or-less did in the early 30s. And millions died outside Ukraine too during that hunger episode, primarily in southern Russia and Central Asia.
Trying to make the 30s famine about Ukrainians is a propaganda exercise first invented by the Nazis to draw Ukrainian sympathy during the Nazi invasion, and it’s picking up strength again as it’s used in Europe to stoke Russophobia and anti-communist sentiment.
I don’t think that’s what they’re saying. There are countless pieces of Nazi propaganda that were taken as fact at some point in the intervening 80 years. Famously, the number of people killed in the Dresden bombing was hugely inflated by the Nazis to smear the Allies, and those numbers were accepted for a very long time.
How are those comparable? In one an able bodied person refuses work, for they need not to. On the other someone incapable of work receive negligible amounts so they may survive
I also very much so doubt you know who Goebbels is
Uh… This is coming from the folks who said “he who does not work, neither shall he eat” during a famine so… uh… yeah, that’s not the flex you think it is.
Edit: And in case anyone is wondering, this gets worse with context.
As opposed to the current time of surplus and abundance where it is if “you don’t work you don’t eat”. Which is morally a lot worse considering there is more than enough food to feed everyone
Yeah… no. Very little in modern history is morally worse than Soviet management of the famine of 1930-1933 (which they caused, too). That shit was at least on par with the Irish Famine in terms of sheer moral depravity.
Let me get this straight. To you, a famine produced unintentionally through policy that spiked class war and originated primarily from rich farmers sabotaging the crops and livestock as a response to their lands being collectivized in the first successful collectivization of a country in the history of the Earth, is to you as morally depraved as the English colonists literally starving Irish to death because of colonial and racist beliefs?
I won’t dignify this slop with a response. Fucking tankies, man.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
You won’t dignify me with a response because you’re simply replicating propaganda that you’ve heard on Reddit, and you can’t argue from knowledge but from vibes.
I don’t know choosing to not feed people when there is enough food to feed everyone seems a lot worse than choosing which people to not feed during a time of famine.
Obviously more people die from the famine, but at least that’s due to a lack of resources and not a manufactured scarcity
I can’t find a way to phrase this that’s not offensive, so I’ll just go ahead: Are you being obtuse or do you just not know what you’re talking about? Because if it’s the latter you should at least take a scroll down this Wikipedia page before you talk about this stuff. However, I will say that sacrificing millions of people for holy communism (which is what happened; the famine was a choice) isn’t much better than sacrificing them for holy property rights. Not asking for foreign aid and denying a famine even existed was also inexcusable.
I am once again asking liberals to stop treating Wikipedia as holy Scripture.
It was a result of bad policy, and that policy was a choice, but it’s pretty misleading to try and spin that as making the famine itself “a choice”.
citation needed
look up just a few of the atrocities the capitalist west has committed. some in the name of destroying socialism.
if you think mismanaging a famine is worse than enslaving entire countries you are either misinformed or speaking in very bad faith.
They also created the famine by decentralizing agriculture and planning, but at least that sort of people learned their lesson from it and didn’t repeat the exact same blunder in China years later, right?
And this was said about able-bodied parasites such as owners of the means of production, shareholders, landlords, and others living off society on non-labor income. At the same time, the population received old-age and disability pensions, maternity leave for women in labor and a huge number of social payments and compensations. Too bad most believe Goebbels propaganda and don’t study history.
And Ukrainians, don’t forget Ukrainians. I know enough about early Soviet history to know that Stalin was a cold-blooded murderer. Not that the rest of the Communist Party was full of upstanding global citizens, but Stalin was particularly egregious.
Translation: I saw it on Reddit
I assure you: you do not.
Here we go again with the false claims of hunger directed particularly against Ukrainians.
The Bolsheviks gave Ukrainians for the first time in history borders of their own, representation of their own in politics and the right to study for free and in their own language. There are literal letters between Rosa Luxembourg and Lenin in which Rosa argues against Ukraine getting its own representation as a nationality, and Lenin argues in favour of it (which ultimately was done).
The president of the Soviet Union after Stalin was Ukrainian. There is no precedent, no continuation, and no following episode of hunger spiking particularly in Ukraine as it more-or-less did in the early 30s. And millions died outside Ukraine too during that hunger episode, primarily in southern Russia and Central Asia.
Trying to make the 30s famine about Ukrainians is a propaganda exercise first invented by the Nazis to draw Ukrainian sympathy during the Nazi invasion, and it’s picking up strength again as it’s used in Europe to stoke Russophobia and anti-communist sentiment.
Of course you do, from the textbooks of Goebels and his followers.
https://shron1.chtyvo.org.ua/Niedzielko_Romuald/Kresova_knyha_spravedlyvykh_1939_1945_Pro_ukraintsiv_iaki_riatuvaly_poliakiv.pdf
http://resource.history.org.ua/cgi-bin/eiu/history.exe?C21COM=2&I21DBN=ELIB&P21DBN=ELIB&Image_file_name=book%2F0008802.pdf&IMAGE_FILE_DOWNLOAD=0
https://liva.com.ua/lenin-ukraine.html
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
edit: updated links
Surely anyone who dares criticize the great Soviets is a straight up Nazi! There can be no other explanation!
That’s a strawman: they certainly didn’t say all critism of the USSR is Nazi. Just that particular piece.
I don’t think that’s what they’re saying. There are countless pieces of Nazi propaganda that were taken as fact at some point in the intervening 80 years. Famously, the number of people killed in the Dresden bombing was hugely inflated by the Nazis to smear the Allies, and those numbers were accepted for a very long time.
In this case, yes. These criticisms are literally Nazi propaganda.
How are those comparable? In one an able bodied person refuses work, for they need not to. On the other someone incapable of work receive negligible amounts so they may survive
I also very much so doubt you know who Goebbels is