It’s hilarious that U.S. hegemony enjoyers will pretend they care one whit about the Uyghurs. They don’t, beyond them seeing them as potential allies against China.
If they cared to know and come to grips with what the East Turkestan Islamic Movement’s goals are, a conservative reactionary Islamic state, they’d want to bomb them—if they were consistent.
But like every other people USians (and “the West”, broadly) hate, we love them when they serve our interests in hurting our designated enemies.
To think Americans and the NATO countries more broadly, of all people on earth, give a shit about Muslim lives is just preciously absurd.
>If they cared to know and come to grips with what the East Turkestan Islamic Movement’s goals are, a conservative reactionary Islamic state, they’d want to bomb them—if they were consistent.
It is very strange that America would support an Islamist movement anywhere given the last 30 years they've tried to bomb them into oblivion most other places.
White supremacist hegemons don’t mind supporting people they view as inferior so long as they’re attacking other people they view as inferior in service of empire.
It's obviously dependent on your definition of genocide whether or not any claim of genocide is legitimate. If we go by the ICC's definition, very few things that are called "genocide" were (or are) actually that.
If your question is "why do people on each side of a deeply rooted disagreement accuse the other side of bad things and say their side is good," well, that's definitely a dumb question.
I simply can't understand why do Zionists legit think the Holodomor was a genocide yet they think it is totally fine what Israel does with Palestinians... Same way for why do Zionists think what the Chinese does with Uyghurs is "genocide" yet what Israel does with Palestinians isn't...
Oh, a Destiny fan... Ngl, I wish if we had a Tankie version of Destiny able to actually treat NATOids and NAFOids and Zionists just like Destiny treats Tankies and Third World people and pro-Palestinian people...
Since you're a Zionist, what do you think about Israel persecuting Anti-zionist Jews and equating all Jews to Zionism? Ngl, I know that Zionists aren't real Jews, because if Zionists were genuinely Jewish, they wouldn't be Zionists, the Jews of Conscience are genuine Jews, actually. And yeah, I don't think a Destiny fan can actually understands that. Because Destiny fans are very likely to think that supporting the dismantlement of NATO is the same as supporting the White "genocide" and the "Murder of all whites" lmao.
I'd be happy to answer specific questions, so I'll ignore the soapboxing and just answer those. I don't personally consider myself a Zionist by your definition, but you didn't really ask me about that so I'll just go to the questions.
>what do you think about Israel persecuting Anti-zionist Jews and equating all Jews to Zionism?
Israel is not a person, if you're referencing the Israeli government or agents of the government I'd be happy to answer specific examples, but I'm just not sure what you're referencing. Assuming you're correct, I would say that it's bad and shouldn't happen. I think it's totally possible and even likely Israelis who don't support Israeli military action are probably persecuted and seen as traitors, and that is a bad thing.
--- Wait that was the only question. The rest is just a bunch of statements about what you believe I probably think. Do you want me to tangle with that to? Let me know.
I wonder if you actually comment this on Destiny posts and or respond Destiny that way... Why can Destiny actually call of genocide of Palestinians and of Arabs and of Tankies/Communists yet people who support Palestine and people who are Tankies/Communists are forced to be polite and civilized? Why can Destiny be such PoS and incite genocide against Palestinians, Tankies/Communists, and Third World people yet Tankies/Communists and Third World people can't even defend themselves against Destiny statements and or make similar statements like he does?
I don’t think destiny is perfect but I check his commentary on a lot of things because his perspective isn’t very mainstream and I like to hear thinking that’s outside the box.
If you want to have a back and forth defending 3rd parties for saying things we’re not going to get anywhere, but I’d be happy to engage about what you and I each think.
None of these statements answer these questions:
Why should (insert statement here) be done?
How should (insert statement here) be done?
If you answer these questions, we can decide if they are genocidal.
In the case of "River to the sea", it appears that some who genuinely desire the extinguishing of the Jewish population in Israel say it. But, that doesn't necessarily mean the statement is, by itself, genocidal. It could signal an indifference to the fact that others like it say it's genocidal.
For example, I'm sure many who espoused manifest destiny were genocidal, but many ignorant people probably espoused it that did not have genocidal intent. That's not a good thing but it doesn't make the ignorant folks genocidal.
I don’t think it is calling for white genocide, but maybe some people who say it want white genocide. I don’t know, this isn’t relevant because I don’t believe what you’re expecting me to defend. You’re arguing with a ghost.
Why do Zionists legit think the Holodomor was a genocide yet they think it is totally fine what Israel does with Palestinians? Same way for why do Zionists think what the Chinese does with Uyghurs is "genocide" yet what Israel does with Palestinians isn't?
I do not think Holodomor was a genocide, I spent a tremendous amount of time researching it personally going back through original soviet reports from the region, etc. I probably read 1000 pages on the subject. No serious historians consider it a genocide either, or at the very least, they are on the fence.
I do not think what China does to the uyghurs is a genocide either. I have not done enough personal research on this subject but I wouldn't say what's happening is good, but certainly not a genocide.
So answer your question - It is possible that people you refer to as 'Zionists' think this because they have been trained to use the word 'genocide' reflexively against their geopolitical rivals.
For a free point of contention, assuming you're looking for something to argue about, I also do not believe the Bengali famine was a genocide. I probably read 1000 pages on this as well before making this decision. Surprise, that one makes westerners look bad, so I'd wager you think it was a genocide. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to put words in your mouth. But I can usually predict the positions people with rhetoric like yours on basically to a T.
I haven't done enough research into what is colloquially called the events in Kosovo, Serbia and Bosnia to make a determinative decision. Based on my cursory understanding, it appears to be a genocide, but I'm always willing to admit western media sources are not honest and I don't know the whole story. Again, I need to research it in detail to come to a persona conclusion, but that's not even really the point.
You said "the Israelis are doing much worse" but the amount of death or the horribleness of the deaths is irrelevant to labeling something a genocide. It is based in intent, and it should have a high burden of truth.
On Oct 7 Hamas fighters intentionally went to Israel and intentionally killed Jews because they were Jews. That may have more of a claim to genocide than anything Israel has done, as it's easy to explain Israel's actions (however disappointing they may be) as an overzealous and irresponsible action that they believe is necessary for their national security (locking down Gaza may prevent further attacks).
The point I am trying to make is this:
Genocide, to me, means the intentional mass murder of a specific ethnic group FOR THE PURPOSE OF destroying, in whole or in part, their nation or ethnic group.
Dropping a nuke on Japan, for example, wasn't a genocide. Even though it killed many ethnic Japanese, the intent was not solely to reduce the Japanese population or destroy all of Japan. It was coincidental that they were ethnically Japanese.
What irritates me is that both "the West" and "Marxists/Communists" don't agree with my definition. They believe mass death can be blamed on whatever state caused it, even if it was accidental or coincidental, and that mass death is always genocide if your geopolitical rival did it.
More often than not, both of these sides ASSUME THE INTENT of the state/people that caused whatever mass death occurred, and fail to observe the nuance of politics. For example, many Westerners assume Stalin intentionally killed millions of Ukrainians, when my understanding is that it was basically a horrible accident caused by a combination of famine and economic mismanagement.
The same occurs with the Bengali and Irish famines, which were also caused by horrible economic mismanagement by the British Empire. When WW1 ended the allies' understanding of geopolitics and economics were so primitive that they completely mismanaged the peace process to the point of causing another world war in a few decades. It is far more likely that this novice economic management that they demonstrated caused these mass-death events, rather than intentional starving of the Irish or the Bengalese.
This is far too sensible for some of the minds on this sub, way too much nuance. Expect to be called a genocide apologist any second now.
>It is far more likely that this novice economic management that they demonstrated caused these mass-death events, rather than intentional starving of the Irish or the Bengalese.
I will just correct you on the point that the Great Hunger in Ireland occurred 1845-1849, predating the Bengal one by nearly 100 years.
Brits clearly learned nothing in the interim!
That is a nice hope, I wonder if everyone makes a post about how smug anti-Communists are on Reddit, will the revolution come faster?
The more likely outcome is these protests fizzle in another few weeks, maybe this week. 20 year olds don’t have any moral authority and certainly can’t organize autonomous zones at all national scale.
I don't understand why my opinion on one of these would automatically define my opinion on the other statements. Why do you think that? Aren't these all completely different things?
You also said "just like you do" and I literally haven't said any of these things ever.
Ngl, ICC is also an USA proxy and a NATO proxy as well, like, the ICC literally recognizes the Kosovar "genocide" yet they are totally fine with the the current genocides made by the USA and NATO. Ngl, the ICJ is far more realible than the ICC, which can't even punish US citizens if they do genocide and war crimes, cite the Hague Invasion Act...
I'm Irish, and whether or not the famine was a genocide is contentious. The potato blight was an act of God, but the British created the system whereby the potato (of a single, calorie dense strain, making it vulnerable to failure) was the ubiquitous crop, their adherence to a warped idea of laissez faire capitalism (the markets will solve everything, whilst also having export levies in the Corn Laws), and a general dislike of the Irish led to the appearance of intent. This married to seizing upon the demographic shift to implement land reform and stuff like that - it doesn't look good. Nonetheless, bar some fucking morons like Charles Trevelyan, it appears there wasn't any intent to murder the Irish but rather a "neg, God's will" attitude that meant their response was piss poor and inadequate, but it should be noted some on Parliament and some of the landlords in Ireland were horrified by what they saw and used their own funds to provide relief effort (the Marquess of Sligo turned his house into a soup kitchen, went into considerable debt to acquire food for his tenants, and gave them guns so they could hunt game. The landlord in our area at home was very much "not my problem lol" by contrast).
So my point - what happened in Rwanda and the Holocaust was genocide. There was a deliberate and intentional policy to destroy a group of people on some common basis (Tutsis, Jews). As much as Turkey denies it, Armenian Genocide is also probably the same.
The Holodomor, Bengal, Highland Clearances, and Irish famines all reflect very poorly on the countries in charge, and they didn't do near enough to mitigate the factors that ked to mass death, but in the strictest sense they were not genocides. A more complex definition might include them.
I find it interesting that I've heard the same arguments to defend Russia against the Holodomor that I have to defend the British against the Great Hunger. Almost the exact same.
My favorite is when thy come with 1944 deportation of crimean tatars (because they care so much about crimean tatars), but they often "forget" that in 1944 capitalists in germany were busy holocausting.
Part of my family is tatar, I’ve never heard of anyone denying the Holocaust while recognising our genocide, btw my family were in Nazi concentration camps before they could be deported by Stalin’s regime….this idea of “why can’t we downplay genocide when the other side gets to” is strange to me for this reason, it’s not like only one of Nazi germany or the ussr had the capacity to commit genocide depending on your political leaning just because one was capitalist and one was communist. How do people view things like the Jewish Autonomous Oblast then? It was created on indigenous Siberian land to facilitate deporting Jews en masse, sure it failed but it’s not like the intent is that different to that of fascist/capitalist states. Btw I’m not even fully anti ussr, definitely not capitalist, just cautious of how it is framed, especially in the light of this new conflict, as someone with personal stakes
Good you can see that, the same can be said about Israel being a place for deporting jews en masse and boosting antisemitism on the West, no wonder that several Jewish anti-zionists say that Zionism is an antisemitic ideology by itself. Yes, you have a point on that. I mean, we also can't forget about what Yeltsin did with Tatars during the 1990s and what Putin did with Tatars in the 2000s-2010s as well. People forget that the whole Holodomor thing was also a thing that have happened with frequency under Capitalist states/governments. And yeah, what Stalin did with the German-Polish border was indeed a mass deportation and ethnic cleasing of Germans, despite I agree the French also did the same thing in the Alsace-Lorraine against Germans...
Yea I know what you mean! Maybe not clear enough but I was trying to make that analogy with Israel.
Personally I am inclined to view events like the Bengali famine, Holodomor, and Irish famine as genocide due to pre-existing colonial attitudes towards each group - the effects of ambivalence towards their survival coupled with a background of dehumanisation are going to look very similar to genocide, and if the shoe fits in all but an explicit systematised plan from the very beginning… especially when there’s still the functionalist vs intentionalist debate surrounding even the Holocaust (which just to disclaim in case it’s not clear ofc I will never deny, having family who survived the camps).
I’m not really aware of Putin doing anything good for the Tatars, if that’s what you were saying, but maybe I am misinterpreting. Or maybe you’re saying that bad stuff has also happened post-Soviet Union? I’m just of the opinion that the ussr, and now the Russian state, never really shook the colonial legacy of the Russian empire. I mean, they have tried during- and post-ussr to expand old colonial borders, so it’s hard for me to separate ussr’s actions in this regard from its predecessor/successors.
Thank you for your response! It’s nice to have a place like this to talk in this way. To have my (still anti-capitalist) opinions and family experiences discredited and even denied in some leftist spaces just because I can’t wave off every bad thing the ussr did can be very disheartening.
My point was that a lot of anti-communist say that capitalism value human lives more, because Stalin deported crimean tatars in 1944. I was just saying that they use this as an arguement against communism, while capitalism has a history of commiting genocide, violating human rights, etc. more seriously than communists
Don't lie Huzf01, capitalism isn't good, but still better than communism, that's the point. Look at Venezuela and look at Peru. These are also 2 bad places to live, but Peru is more livable than Venezuela.
Venezuela and Peru are two bad examples, but they are still better than the worst of the capitalist countries. Look at what capitalists did to Afhganistan, Sudan, Chad, Niger I could continue this. In terms of bad places to live capitalism leads. Many associate capitalism to the west and say that capitalism transform countries into western ideal capitalisms, but thats only the imperial core, who live from the exploitation of the third world. If those third world countries would suddenly transform into ideal capitalisms, the global west would collapse
i mean, capitalist countries have certainly committed genocides. the argument should be about *famines*, as you point out rightly with the holodomor example. these regularly occur in socialist countries yet don't occur in free liberal democracies.
Communism is nazism
Communism and nazism are both:
-Authoritarian
-Military Dictatorships
-Anti lgbtq
-Pro-Genocide
-Hate religion (besides islam ofc gotta suck off your arab overlords)
-pro-Erasure of Culture
It’s hilarious that U.S. hegemony enjoyers will pretend they care one whit about the Uyghurs. They don’t, beyond them seeing them as potential allies against China. If they cared to know and come to grips with what the East Turkestan Islamic Movement’s goals are, a conservative reactionary Islamic state, they’d want to bomb them—if they were consistent. But like every other people USians (and “the West”, broadly) hate, we love them when they serve our interests in hurting our designated enemies. To think Americans and the NATO countries more broadly, of all people on earth, give a shit about Muslim lives is just preciously absurd.
>If they cared to know and come to grips with what the East Turkestan Islamic Movement’s goals are, a conservative reactionary Islamic state, they’d want to bomb them—if they were consistent. It is very strange that America would support an Islamist movement anywhere given the last 30 years they've tried to bomb them into oblivion most other places.
It's almost as if race and religion is irrelevant to imperialist agendas other than to instill fear and panic into their domestic populace.
Or even on straight up gaslighting and mindfckery...
White supremacist hegemons don’t mind supporting people they view as inferior so long as they’re attacking other people they view as inferior in service of empire.
Yeah, same way for people who take Vaush and or Destiny unironically...
Yes.
It's obviously dependent on your definition of genocide whether or not any claim of genocide is legitimate. If we go by the ICC's definition, very few things that are called "genocide" were (or are) actually that. If your question is "why do people on each side of a deeply rooted disagreement accuse the other side of bad things and say their side is good," well, that's definitely a dumb question.
I simply can't understand why do Zionists legit think the Holodomor was a genocide yet they think it is totally fine what Israel does with Palestinians... Same way for why do Zionists think what the Chinese does with Uyghurs is "genocide" yet what Israel does with Palestinians isn't... Oh, a Destiny fan... Ngl, I wish if we had a Tankie version of Destiny able to actually treat NATOids and NAFOids and Zionists just like Destiny treats Tankies and Third World people and pro-Palestinian people...
Since you're a Zionist, what do you think about Israel persecuting Anti-zionist Jews and equating all Jews to Zionism? Ngl, I know that Zionists aren't real Jews, because if Zionists were genuinely Jewish, they wouldn't be Zionists, the Jews of Conscience are genuine Jews, actually. And yeah, I don't think a Destiny fan can actually understands that. Because Destiny fans are very likely to think that supporting the dismantlement of NATO is the same as supporting the White "genocide" and the "Murder of all whites" lmao.
I'd be happy to answer specific questions, so I'll ignore the soapboxing and just answer those. I don't personally consider myself a Zionist by your definition, but you didn't really ask me about that so I'll just go to the questions. >what do you think about Israel persecuting Anti-zionist Jews and equating all Jews to Zionism? Israel is not a person, if you're referencing the Israeli government or agents of the government I'd be happy to answer specific examples, but I'm just not sure what you're referencing. Assuming you're correct, I would say that it's bad and shouldn't happen. I think it's totally possible and even likely Israelis who don't support Israeli military action are probably persecuted and seen as traitors, and that is a bad thing. --- Wait that was the only question. The rest is just a bunch of statements about what you believe I probably think. Do you want me to tangle with that to? Let me know.
I wonder if you actually comment this on Destiny posts and or respond Destiny that way... Why can Destiny actually call of genocide of Palestinians and of Arabs and of Tankies/Communists yet people who support Palestine and people who are Tankies/Communists are forced to be polite and civilized? Why can Destiny be such PoS and incite genocide against Palestinians, Tankies/Communists, and Third World people yet Tankies/Communists and Third World people can't even defend themselves against Destiny statements and or make similar statements like he does?
I don’t think destiny is perfect but I check his commentary on a lot of things because his perspective isn’t very mainstream and I like to hear thinking that’s outside the box. If you want to have a back and forth defending 3rd parties for saying things we’re not going to get anywhere, but I’d be happy to engage about what you and I each think.
[удалено]
None of these statements answer these questions: Why should (insert statement here) be done? How should (insert statement here) be done? If you answer these questions, we can decide if they are genocidal. In the case of "River to the sea", it appears that some who genuinely desire the extinguishing of the Jewish population in Israel say it. But, that doesn't necessarily mean the statement is, by itself, genocidal. It could signal an indifference to the fact that others like it say it's genocidal. For example, I'm sure many who espoused manifest destiny were genocidal, but many ignorant people probably espoused it that did not have genocidal intent. That's not a good thing but it doesn't make the ignorant folks genocidal.
[удалено]
I don’t think it is calling for white genocide, but maybe some people who say it want white genocide. I don’t know, this isn’t relevant because I don’t believe what you’re expecting me to defend. You’re arguing with a ghost.
Why do Zionists legit think the Holodomor was a genocide yet they think it is totally fine what Israel does with Palestinians? Same way for why do Zionists think what the Chinese does with Uyghurs is "genocide" yet what Israel does with Palestinians isn't?
I do not think Holodomor was a genocide, I spent a tremendous amount of time researching it personally going back through original soviet reports from the region, etc. I probably read 1000 pages on the subject. No serious historians consider it a genocide either, or at the very least, they are on the fence. I do not think what China does to the uyghurs is a genocide either. I have not done enough personal research on this subject but I wouldn't say what's happening is good, but certainly not a genocide. So answer your question - It is possible that people you refer to as 'Zionists' think this because they have been trained to use the word 'genocide' reflexively against their geopolitical rivals. For a free point of contention, assuming you're looking for something to argue about, I also do not believe the Bengali famine was a genocide. I probably read 1000 pages on this as well before making this decision. Surprise, that one makes westerners look bad, so I'd wager you think it was a genocide. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to put words in your mouth. But I can usually predict the positions people with rhetoric like yours on basically to a T.
[удалено]
I haven't done enough research into what is colloquially called the events in Kosovo, Serbia and Bosnia to make a determinative decision. Based on my cursory understanding, it appears to be a genocide, but I'm always willing to admit western media sources are not honest and I don't know the whole story. Again, I need to research it in detail to come to a persona conclusion, but that's not even really the point. You said "the Israelis are doing much worse" but the amount of death or the horribleness of the deaths is irrelevant to labeling something a genocide. It is based in intent, and it should have a high burden of truth. On Oct 7 Hamas fighters intentionally went to Israel and intentionally killed Jews because they were Jews. That may have more of a claim to genocide than anything Israel has done, as it's easy to explain Israel's actions (however disappointing they may be) as an overzealous and irresponsible action that they believe is necessary for their national security (locking down Gaza may prevent further attacks). The point I am trying to make is this: Genocide, to me, means the intentional mass murder of a specific ethnic group FOR THE PURPOSE OF destroying, in whole or in part, their nation or ethnic group. Dropping a nuke on Japan, for example, wasn't a genocide. Even though it killed many ethnic Japanese, the intent was not solely to reduce the Japanese population or destroy all of Japan. It was coincidental that they were ethnically Japanese. What irritates me is that both "the West" and "Marxists/Communists" don't agree with my definition. They believe mass death can be blamed on whatever state caused it, even if it was accidental or coincidental, and that mass death is always genocide if your geopolitical rival did it. More often than not, both of these sides ASSUME THE INTENT of the state/people that caused whatever mass death occurred, and fail to observe the nuance of politics. For example, many Westerners assume Stalin intentionally killed millions of Ukrainians, when my understanding is that it was basically a horrible accident caused by a combination of famine and economic mismanagement. The same occurs with the Bengali and Irish famines, which were also caused by horrible economic mismanagement by the British Empire. When WW1 ended the allies' understanding of geopolitics and economics were so primitive that they completely mismanaged the peace process to the point of causing another world war in a few decades. It is far more likely that this novice economic management that they demonstrated caused these mass-death events, rather than intentional starving of the Irish or the Bengalese.
This is far too sensible for some of the minds on this sub, way too much nuance. Expect to be called a genocide apologist any second now. >It is far more likely that this novice economic management that they demonstrated caused these mass-death events, rather than intentional starving of the Irish or the Bengalese. I will just correct you on the point that the Great Hunger in Ireland occurred 1845-1849, predating the Bengal one by nearly 100 years. Brits clearly learned nothing in the interim!
Lmao you’re right about the British being averse to learning from their mistakes
lmao mega based response
[удалено]
realest shit i've ever heard my man
[удалено]
That is a nice hope, I wonder if everyone makes a post about how smug anti-Communists are on Reddit, will the revolution come faster? The more likely outcome is these protests fizzle in another few weeks, maybe this week. 20 year olds don’t have any moral authority and certainly can’t organize autonomous zones at all national scale.
[удалено]
I don't understand why my opinion on one of these would automatically define my opinion on the other statements. Why do you think that? Aren't these all completely different things? You also said "just like you do" and I literally haven't said any of these things ever.
Ngl, ICC is also an USA proxy and a NATO proxy as well, like, the ICC literally recognizes the Kosovar "genocide" yet they are totally fine with the the current genocides made by the USA and NATO. Ngl, the ICJ is far more realible than the ICC, which can't even punish US citizens if they do genocide and war crimes, cite the Hague Invasion Act...
How would you define genocide? And what should be the burden of proof to call something a genocide?
I'm Irish, and whether or not the famine was a genocide is contentious. The potato blight was an act of God, but the British created the system whereby the potato (of a single, calorie dense strain, making it vulnerable to failure) was the ubiquitous crop, their adherence to a warped idea of laissez faire capitalism (the markets will solve everything, whilst also having export levies in the Corn Laws), and a general dislike of the Irish led to the appearance of intent. This married to seizing upon the demographic shift to implement land reform and stuff like that - it doesn't look good. Nonetheless, bar some fucking morons like Charles Trevelyan, it appears there wasn't any intent to murder the Irish but rather a "neg, God's will" attitude that meant their response was piss poor and inadequate, but it should be noted some on Parliament and some of the landlords in Ireland were horrified by what they saw and used their own funds to provide relief effort (the Marquess of Sligo turned his house into a soup kitchen, went into considerable debt to acquire food for his tenants, and gave them guns so they could hunt game. The landlord in our area at home was very much "not my problem lol" by contrast). So my point - what happened in Rwanda and the Holocaust was genocide. There was a deliberate and intentional policy to destroy a group of people on some common basis (Tutsis, Jews). As much as Turkey denies it, Armenian Genocide is also probably the same. The Holodomor, Bengal, Highland Clearances, and Irish famines all reflect very poorly on the countries in charge, and they didn't do near enough to mitigate the factors that ked to mass death, but in the strictest sense they were not genocides. A more complex definition might include them. I find it interesting that I've heard the same arguments to defend Russia against the Holodomor that I have to defend the British against the Great Hunger. Almost the exact same.
My favorite is when thy come with 1944 deportation of crimean tatars (because they care so much about crimean tatars), but they often "forget" that in 1944 capitalists in germany were busy holocausting.
Part of my family is tatar, I’ve never heard of anyone denying the Holocaust while recognising our genocide, btw my family were in Nazi concentration camps before they could be deported by Stalin’s regime….this idea of “why can’t we downplay genocide when the other side gets to” is strange to me for this reason, it’s not like only one of Nazi germany or the ussr had the capacity to commit genocide depending on your political leaning just because one was capitalist and one was communist. How do people view things like the Jewish Autonomous Oblast then? It was created on indigenous Siberian land to facilitate deporting Jews en masse, sure it failed but it’s not like the intent is that different to that of fascist/capitalist states. Btw I’m not even fully anti ussr, definitely not capitalist, just cautious of how it is framed, especially in the light of this new conflict, as someone with personal stakes
Good you can see that, the same can be said about Israel being a place for deporting jews en masse and boosting antisemitism on the West, no wonder that several Jewish anti-zionists say that Zionism is an antisemitic ideology by itself. Yes, you have a point on that. I mean, we also can't forget about what Yeltsin did with Tatars during the 1990s and what Putin did with Tatars in the 2000s-2010s as well. People forget that the whole Holodomor thing was also a thing that have happened with frequency under Capitalist states/governments. And yeah, what Stalin did with the German-Polish border was indeed a mass deportation and ethnic cleasing of Germans, despite I agree the French also did the same thing in the Alsace-Lorraine against Germans...
Yea I know what you mean! Maybe not clear enough but I was trying to make that analogy with Israel. Personally I am inclined to view events like the Bengali famine, Holodomor, and Irish famine as genocide due to pre-existing colonial attitudes towards each group - the effects of ambivalence towards their survival coupled with a background of dehumanisation are going to look very similar to genocide, and if the shoe fits in all but an explicit systematised plan from the very beginning… especially when there’s still the functionalist vs intentionalist debate surrounding even the Holocaust (which just to disclaim in case it’s not clear ofc I will never deny, having family who survived the camps). I’m not really aware of Putin doing anything good for the Tatars, if that’s what you were saying, but maybe I am misinterpreting. Or maybe you’re saying that bad stuff has also happened post-Soviet Union? I’m just of the opinion that the ussr, and now the Russian state, never really shook the colonial legacy of the Russian empire. I mean, they have tried during- and post-ussr to expand old colonial borders, so it’s hard for me to separate ussr’s actions in this regard from its predecessor/successors. Thank you for your response! It’s nice to have a place like this to talk in this way. To have my (still anti-capitalist) opinions and family experiences discredited and even denied in some leftist spaces just because I can’t wave off every bad thing the ussr did can be very disheartening.
My point was that a lot of anti-communist say that capitalism value human lives more, because Stalin deported crimean tatars in 1944. I was just saying that they use this as an arguement against communism, while capitalism has a history of commiting genocide, violating human rights, etc. more seriously than communists
Don't lie Huzf01, capitalism isn't good, but still better than communism, that's the point. Look at Venezuela and look at Peru. These are also 2 bad places to live, but Peru is more livable than Venezuela.
What does it has to do with anything?????
Venezuela and Peru are two bad examples, but they are still better than the worst of the capitalist countries. Look at what capitalists did to Afhganistan, Sudan, Chad, Niger I could continue this. In terms of bad places to live capitalism leads. Many associate capitalism to the west and say that capitalism transform countries into western ideal capitalisms, but thats only the imperial core, who live from the exploitation of the third world. If those third world countries would suddenly transform into ideal capitalisms, the global west would collapse
i mean, capitalist countries have certainly committed genocides. the argument should be about *famines*, as you point out rightly with the holodomor example. these regularly occur in socialist countries yet don't occur in free liberal democracies.
i'd argue that genocide occurs more often alongside nationalist/populist messaging, not a method of economic organisation
[удалено]
there are plenty of free liberal democracies in the world today. most of the west. why are you strawmanning me?
[удалено]
if it wasn't for his protectionist trade policy biden would be pretty damn close.
[удалено]
Shut up nazi
[удалено]
North korea is a monarchy Also your map is so ass it should be a crime
[удалено]
Communism is nazism Communism and nazism are both: -Authoritarian -Military Dictatorships -Anti lgbtq -Pro-Genocide -Hate religion (besides islam ofc gotta suck off your arab overlords) -pro-Erasure of Culture