My original comment was disagreeing with the meme.

Your original comment says “tankies” think the Confederacy should’ve won.

I don’t see how any of the things you’re saying about the Trump presidency are relevant. If the so called “tankies” didn’t vote for Trump then they’re not responsible for what he’s doing. Take it up with the people who actually voted for Trump.

They are grouped by topics 1 respondent, 2 politics, 3 literacy confirmation, 4 thesis, 5 warning, 6 intersection check, 7 commentary, 8 openness to dialogue

What conclusion am I supposed to draw from this? Am I supposed to now be sympathetic to Russia because of the issues with corporate American media? You are making wild assumptions of where I get my information from and what my views are.

I have disdain for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine just as I have disdain for Israel’s treatment of Palestine and the United States’ enablement of this.

Maybe you didn’t realize this, but the very same people withholding the full release of the Epstein files and allowing so many to skirt accountability for their horrible crimes are not exactly friendly to Ukraine.

No amount of bloviating about how supposedly unfairly the media treats figures like Putin and Trump is going to get me to support their expansionistic endeavors and immoral wars.

These vile, expansionistic behaviors are not simply different people with different viewpoints. The purveyors of these actions and their supporters are owed no tolerance.

Do you think i save a link for every thing i see and interact with online?

Eh lol maybe just end this stupid war! Where they are the unquestionable aggressor of…

This war is so stupid on many levels… But Puttler cannot back down anymore without loosing his face, kinda sad situation…

Funny thing, if Russia had just done nothing, they would be better off in every conceivable metric.

What I find so sad about you tankies is how you just put everything in categories, like “those evil liberals” (sure the propaganda in the USA is also plain stupid, like communism used as some term of scaring someone etc.)

That the world is more complex, and authoritarian means are not the solution to establish healthy socialism long term… Russia or Puttler is purely destructive on basically all scales (now unquestionably joined by USA with their entirely idiotic leader)

I will just repeat what I wrote:

It has been the USA (& allies) invading, nobody denies that. For example the 2001 Afghanstan invasion was started by the USA, the UK, Australia and taleban, and most other countries got involved after the United Nations gave the permission to ISAF - other here including most other NATO countries, and at least 24 non-nato countries. At that point it was not an NATO invasion, it was UN trying to help clean up the mess that was Afghanstan civil war, which started in 1978 already. Did that succeed? No. Was it the entirety of NATO just randomly invading Afghanistan? Also no. In Iraq in 2003 USA plus the coalition of willing, was not the entitity of NATO either. The genocide of Palestine has been going on practically from the beginning of Israel, the latest whole huge mess has not been a NATO operation either.

The usual claims, that every time any NATO countries get involved with some unlawful USA invasions, is just part of Russian propaganda tactics, trying to pretend its bordering countries joining NATO, because of the risk of Russian invasion, is somehow NATO trying to attack Russia. Claiming all these wars are just “NATO invasions” is downplaying the complexity of these situations, in attempt of trying to justificate Russian invasions. The whole reason countries like the Baltics - and now Sweden and Finland - have joined NATO, is because Russia invades its neighbors the moment it wants, like it has done in Ukraine.

It has been the USA (& allies) invading, nobody denies that. For example the 2001 Afghanstan invasion was started by the USA, the UK, Australia and taleban, and most other countries got involved after the United Nations gave the permission to ISAF - other here including most other NATO countries, and at least 24 non-nato countries. At that point it was not an NATO invasion, it was UN trying to help clean up the mess that was Afghanstan civil war, which started in 1978 already. Did that succeed? No. Was it the entirety of NATO just randomly invading Afghanistan? Also no. In Iraq in 2003 USA plus the coalition of willing, was not the entitity of NATO either. The genocide of Palestine has been going on practically from the beginning of Israel, the latest whole huge mess has not been a NATO operation either.

The usual claims, that every time any NATO countries get involved with some unlawful USA invasions, is just part of Russian propaganda tactics, trying to pretend its bordering countries joining NATO, because of the risk of Russian invasion, is somehow NATO trying to attack Russia. Claiming all these wars are just “NATO invasions” is downplaying the complexity of these situations, in attempt of trying to justificate Russian invasions. The whole reason countries like the Baltics - and now Sweden and Finland - have joined NATO, is because Russia invades its neighbors the moment it wants, like it has done in Ukraine.

Truly a disgusting display of manipulation and inability to govern somehow transformed into “freeing the slaves”

The resulting sharecropping was often worse than slavery

Look buddy, it’s neat you have the same takes and cadence as Everyone’s Wildly Racist Uncle. Real neat, you have a lovely one, cya!

I asked for any source and you linked some (inadequate) secondary sources below that simply discuss that sharecropping was discriminatory. Slavery wasn’t bad just because it was racist, and you clearly thought that was the case. I’d be happy to provide a reading list when I have a minute.

Also, you not only said that, but you said it multiple times explicitly throughout this thread. Bud, you gotta stop pretending to know about shit you clearly don’t know well enough about.

Yeah, that was kinda my takeaway when I finally got decent info. The Nazi groups seem to be getting big enough to be legitimately problematic, but like you said, I can’t entirely blame Ukraine for focusing on bigger problems for now, especially when those factions are willing to help defend the country. It’s kind of a cursed bargain, but it’s not like they have better options right now.

“There is no evidence it was intention­ally directed against Ukrainians,” said Al­exander Dallin of Stanford, the father of modern Sovietology. “That would be to­tally out of keeping with what we know — ­it makes no sense.”

“This is crap, rubbish,” said Moshe Lewin of the University of Pennsylvania, whose Russian Peasants and Soviet Pow­er broke new ground in social history. “I am an anti-Stalinist, but I don’t see how this [genocide] campaign adds to our knowledge. It’s adding horrors, adding horrors, until it becomes a pathology.”

“I absolutely reject it,” said Lynne Vio­la of SUNY-Binghamton, the first U.S. historian to examine Moscow’s Central State Archive on collectivization. “Why in god’s name would this paranoid gov­ernment consciously produce a famine when they were terrifed of war [with Germany]?”

Then there are those who love to twist, and shout — to use scholarly disinformation for their own, less dignified purposes. In the latest catalogue for The Noontide Press, a Liberty Lobby affiliate run by flamboyant fascist Willis Carto, The Harvest of Sorrow is listed cheek-by-jowl with such revisionist tomes as The Auschwitz Myth and Hitler at My Side. To hype the Conquest book and its ter­ror-famine, the catalogue notes: “The act of genocide against the Ukrainian people has been supressed [sic] until recently, perhaps because a real ‘Holocaust’ might compete with a Holohoax.”

For those unacquainted with Noontide jargon, the “Holohoax” refers to the Nazi slaughter of six million Jews.

This is not ancient history. The Ukrai­nian émigré groups still contain more than a few former OUN members, and many of their sons and daughters. The nationalists still heroize their wartime past. On occasion their old passions sur­face as well — as in Why Is One Holocaust Worth More Than Others?, recently pub­lished by Veterans of the Ukrainian In­surgent Army: “In 1933, the majority of the European and American press controlled by the Jews were silent about the famine.”

From this perspective, the “conspira­cy” lives on: “In (February} 1986 the Jew­ish newspaper Village Voice … published one-and-one-half pages of accusations against a high-standing member of the Ukrainian nationalist movement, Mykola Lebed.”

Just as the Nazis used the OUN for their own ends, so has Reagan exploited the famine, from his purple-prosed com­memoration of “this callous act” to his backing of the Mace commission. Faced with failing fascist allies around the world, from Nicaragua to South Africa, the U.S. war lobby needs to boost anti­-Communism as never before. Public en­thusiasm to fight for the contras will not come easy. But if people could be con­vinced that Communism is worse than fascism; that Stalin was an insane mon­ster, even worse than Hitler; that the seven million died in more unspeakable agony than the six million …. Well, we just might be set up for the next Gulf of Tonkin. One cannot appease an Evil Em­pire, after all.

https://www.villagevoice.com/in-search-of-a-soviet-holocaust/

see also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_genocide_theory

Seriously. Was Holodomor a deliberate genocide? This is the hill you’re going to die on?

Genocides are by definition deliberate.
If you agree that it was not a deliberate action, but an unwanted disaster, then you won’t find an argument against that.

Going to note, though, that you seem to be more critical of that than of, for example, what the genocidaires of Palestine have been doing, including the famines they actually caused deliberately.

Much like the Irish Famine was only a tragic genocide because the British overlords wouldn’t put up with reducing their own take.

The Irish Famine was a deliberate action, which is indicated in part by the fact that the rest of the empire did not experience issues with food. There is also the fact that the government literally blocked relief for the famine.

The fact that you imply that these two events are both “tragic genocides” betrays both your lack of understanding of what genocides are and of what those events entailed.

I’m a leftist, but I’m an honest one.

Why call the famine of 1932 a genocide, then, when you agree that it does not fit the definition, and when you know that it wasn’t a repeat event (like what was happening in the Russian Empire, or what NATO has been doing in the world)?

Be actually honest and do some self-reflection on what you believe about your empire’s enemies simply because your empire told you to believe that.

Also, I’d like to know what you think of Canada - a state involved in NATO’s invasions like the ones of Iraq and Afghanistan, the genocide of Palestine, the kidnapping of Actual American children, etc. - as well as what you think of the OUN - an organisation worshipped by the post-coup Ukrainian state that was trying to do a genocide in Ukraine before WW2 and allied with nazi Germany during WW2?

Russians, AND Ukranians …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kaaYvauNho&pp=ygUVaG9sb2RvbW9yIGJhZGVtcGFuYWRh, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L3d0GJlzgc&pp=ygUVaG9sb2RvbW9yIGJhZGVtcGFuYWRh , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu5-tqHHtaM&pp=ygUjVGhlIHNvdmlldCBmYW1pbmUgbWFyeGlzb

ACKSHUALLY the Kazakhs were the most affected by the famine of 1932 im a per capita basis.

The kazhaks lost more people per capita than Ukraine did. Major non-Ukrainian Russian populations centers suffered equally or very nearly as much as Ukraine did.

So you may think you’re an honest leftist, but you might not be. As an honest leftist myself, I recognize that the Soviet government made tragic decisions, many of them punitive, none of them directed at ethnic cleansing, because the Soviet Union did not have an analysis that included specific ethnicities being material to their political goals as ethnicities. They understood, documented, wrote about, discussed, debated, legislated, and enforced the exact opposite of ethnic cleansing constantly. Yes, Ukranian suffered a lot through the transition to collectivized agriculture, more than most. But that’s because the majority of Ukranian peasants were freeholders of land, whereas the majority of Russian peasants were serfs. As freeholders, they would lose their claim to their farms. Serfs would suffer no such loss. This was structural. Russian peasants weren’t targeted for collectivization because under the Tsar they were already collectivized, whereas Ukranian peasants had private ownership of the land they worked.

Collectivization was not ethnic cleansing, the famine was not ethnically targeted, and the punitive actions of the Soviet Union were not ethnically motivated by an ethnic strategy of ethnic supremacy.

That’s honesty. Honesty is doing the reading, doing the research, and not discarding all the evidence that contradicts the obviously contrived narrative. Yes there was a famine. Yes it killed more Ukranians in absolute numbers. Yes the Soviet leadership made deliberate decisions that were intended to punish people who were Ukranians. No it wasn’t because they were Ukranian, no it wasn’t because the Soviet leadership thought that ethnic cleansing would achieve their intended goals, no it’s not because the Soviet leadership decided to artificially starve all of those people out of malice or ethnic supremacy.

The Chinese failure of agriculture was under embargo from the West’s proven science and supply chains. They were forced to come up with their own solutions from scratch from a starting position that was far far behind the rest of the world.

Lysenko was operating in a world where the West had developed the theory of the gene but not yet proven the gene existed and the West immediately developed it into eugenics from its racist tyrannical fascist politics, and Lysenko and the politicians were reacting to that. While Europeans were going around saying “genetics is real therefore we should kill all the poors and the browns before they taint our bloodline”, the Soviets were saying “if we improve social conditions then people will heal for generations to come”.

I know we are literally awash in comic book level propaganda where the evil Soviets were dastardly lying to everyone for power and control, but if you actually read the history, the narratives we have been fed start to look a lot like outright lies.

100% if they had followed the science they would have done better, but science is not apolitical, research on heredity especially so, and without any molecular basis for the theory of genetics, it looks a lot like master race politics.

What is an “unwanted famine”? Nobody wanted a famine. Lysenko was wrong, and the government backed him because they didn’t know he was wrong. It was a mistake, not a deliberate strategem to harm people.

Yes. But these topics about tankies are about reinforcing ‘us/them’ rationalizations for those who already have their prejudice. The comments here certainly do.

By providing a critical thinking from Lenin, you instead become the tankie, and therefore become incapable of critical thinking, per the meme. Therefore anything Lenin might’ve said or written can just be dismissed.

And so the tankie can be mocked as a confederate chud nonetheless.

And? You seem to be under the delusion that tankies have actually read anything by their heroes.

You need to tell that to the tankies. We already know it here. They are the ones having problems understanding that.

I didn’t say don’t understand them, I’m saying they’re literally not thinking that deeply about it. They want to get a rise out of you and someone showed them they can do that by opening with a straw-man like this. By deliberately misrepresenting what “Tankie” means they can completely disarm it and force you to defend a position they chose, which they know is indefensible. It’s pure rhetorical strategy, they don’t actually know or care what a Tankie thinks. They’re trying to make the word mean something it never has and never should mean. Is it possible someone on their side has done some work to rationalize their twisted interpretation. That rationalization is usually paper thin and almost no one on their side knows or cares about it besides its usefulness as a tactical fallback. They don’t believe any of this, its a rhetorical game and the point is their nihilistic disregard for consequences.

The largest countries who all stand alone and refuse to truly tie themselves to the international community.

I think you’ve missed the point.