Exactly what it says on the tin. Looking for sources, PDFs, anything that plays apologetics for Socialist States. Basically stuff like facts on Holodomore and the Soviet Gulags, how many people did Mao's Cultural revolution really kill, statistics and facts on Cuba, Warsaw pact compared to NATO and aggressiveness, stuff on Gaddafi's Libya, Baathism, etc.
Seen a few of these crop up before like a North Korean thread where anons had a shit ton of sources images. Basically something like that but a general for any socialist nation or organization that has existed. The animu girls are for flavor.
Not everything Furr has said is wrong. His biggest autism is probably the Moscow Trials.
Yeah, but using Furr as a source because "not everything he said was wrong", is like eating from a 300 year old bread basket because "some loafs are still fine".
Also the whole Trotsky was an uberagent of every reactionary power Like people from across the world still try to find those damn Goebbels quotes in any version of his diaries (not even a trot but damn)
Ironic considering Hungary is what most "libertarian" leftists point to as the moment where tankies jumped the shark
Guess those Stalin statues getting destroyed wasn't so cool after all lmo
I'm actually Hungarian and OP and posted in the one thread on the Hungarian leader. I am very much against the Hungarian revolution and side with our Soviet aligned government at the time.
I explained better on that thread but most of the revolutionaries were not that Communist with Nagy being almost the only example and even he is up for debate and this is more anecdotal but I only see legit honest to god open fascists praising the revolution a lot, with fascsitball the youtube user uploading Hungarian songs from that revolution.
"Look dude u might actually be a Hungarian and claim to have seen the negative side effects of both the fascists who supported the Hungarian revolution and the fall of the CCCP have had on your country but I'm an American anarcho-democratic-intersectionalist and my dad works for the CIA so I know the real story and am more of a leftist than you cuz I know a bunch of trans people irl haha"
What do you guys say when Zionists claim that Israel offered to give Syria the Golan Heights back in 2008? Or the claim that Israel offered a great deal to the Palestinians in 2001 and 2008? Where any of those deals as fair as Israelis claim, and how serious where the flaws if they weren't fair? So far I've only been able to push back against the 2001 saying that the Palestinians probably would have accepted it today, but the Israeli elections were that year so the whole thing collapsed because of them. I'm curious to know if there were any flaws with them and how serious they were. Please don't just give me some shitty WordPress site or Quora link as an answer.
All Israeli formations of a two state solution would have left the main pillars of apartheid intact and do nothing to actually give Palestinians any of their actual state power back which means any geographical concessions are meaningless as they could just be yanked away again if the Palestinians started acting naughty again (naughty here means acting like Israel is occupying and opressing them at the behest of the centers of modern day imperialism and globalism).
It's essentially the same as when socdems argue that leftists shouldn't get too radical cuz you won't get anything at all whereas if you keep your head down and your tail between your legs and politely ask for and accept concessions you get table scraps for a while. It's just a cope and a complete misrepresentation of what the actual debate is about
Pretty much the conversation. Ironic thing about that and this post is I am actually trans.
The main issue with the Hungarian thing is Rakosi was an open Stalinist and praised him and then when Kruschev made his speech, people hearing "wow this Stalin guy sounds like an asshole we should get rid of our own leader that likes Stalin."
Which backfired on Kruschev since despite bitching about Stalin he was more then happy to keep Stalinists in other nations who were loyal to the USSR and willing to fight against NATO.
That's strange since all I hear is why they can't give Syria the heights back.
Well now they aren't giving it up. The problem is when you say that Israel should give the Golan Heights back to Syria, Zionist say that they already tried to give it back, but Assad wouldn't have it. That's why I want to know the contents of the "deal" or whatever it was.
Okay arguing about the ideal settlement for the conflict is a different matter. The PLA is shit but they represent the Palestinians, and they back a two state solution. A 2SS is the international consensus on the issue, so every time that the PLA reject a "peace offer" that guarantees a 2SS, it makes it seem like the Palestinians aren't interested in finding a solution to the conflict. And Palestine would be legitimized in a conflict with Israel since they would be considered a state defending itself whenever Israel lauches another attack.
I'm looking for Great Leap Forward stuff in particular, I can easily debunk Gorillions claims for the Soviet famine of 1932-3 but I don't know as much about the GLF. I usually cite the official CPC figure of 15 million, which is credible because it was used by Deng's faction to vilify the Maoists.
Actually ignore that last sentence it has nothing to do with the optics of the PLA rejecting a 2SS and its a dumb point
Yeah can't find anything on Syria giving it back.
Got any links on the Soviet famine?
Bud I'm talking about Israel handing back the Golan Heights to Syria. Syria has nothing to give back to Israel lmao. Hopefully that was just a mistype, because Israel trying to give up the Golan Heights was a very real thing at one ppint. This article (nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/middleeast/secret-israel-syria-peace-talks-involved-golan-heights-exit.html) was the only one I can find about it, but it doesn't list 2008 as the year that the offer was given. It seems to suggest that Israel's deal was supposed to break up the Hezbollah-Iran-Syria match up in 2010, but the whole thing fell out after the Arab Spring. I guess that answers that question…
I'm still interested in those other 2 agreements with the Palestinians that fell out though.
I would like to use this thread to say something that I feel is important.
I am bisexual and at times I have weird feelings that from research can probably be classified as "gender fluid" but only sjw radlibs who probably aren't even actually gay or questioning their gender use that term so I don't say it cuz I don't want to be associated with them and I have gay relatives who I love, but I think the argument that Communist Parties such as the KKP shouldn't be supported because they still have traces of the homophobia which plagued much of the Old Left is fucking retarded.
In my opinion if a Communist Party is for building socialism as the economic base of society they should be supported and we can quibble about the social values after they are in power. "B-b-but Stalin gulagged a million gays!" I literally don't care, it's the 21st century and any Marxist Leninist parry that gains power probably knows somewhere that any antiquated positions they still have regarding LGBT shit will have to change eventually even if they currently maintain said positions to keep the part of their base that is old hetero guys from the Kruschev era or whatever.
I would much rather have a party which is committed to building socialism be in power and have to struggle through a period of cultural reform than have a woke neoliberal government that topples the economy over and over and virtue signals towards gays and minorities while doing it thus attracting the more heteronormative sections of the working class towards fascism that, once in charge will kill way more of us than any communist party ever would
Who even claims Stalin killed 60 million people anymore? It's literally impossible to kill that many people in a few years during peacetime.
Like 98% of parties even many ML ones support gay shit at this point that its a non issue. I would talk more about it but I am tried and perhaps some other time.
I have legit seen some tarded burgers claim this however the post also deals with the 24 million claims which is also tarded.
Yeah, I've just seen really bizarre opinions on this board before, even from Leninists, that some parties shouldn't be supported cuz they're anti gay or whatever even if their economic analysis is silid anf i just think its stupid and alarmist to act like if they got into power they'd start wiping out gays first thing cuz somewhere 100 pages into their party platform which hasn't been updated since the 1970s it says something about homosexuality being bourgeoise
I meant the KKE (Greek communist party which has been at the center of the debate every time it comes up) not the KKP (Turkish commies who I think are cool with gays)
I certainly don't think parties like that shouldn't be supported but I think its retarded to make excuses for it either. There is literally nothing stopping you from being committed to socialism and not talking about how homosexuality is bourgeois decadence and voting against same sex sex marriage or whatever. You can and should in fact do both and its not difficult or compromising in the slightest. Sure we need to should take what we can get and you should never support libs over socialists on the basis of stuff like that but that's no reason to make excuses for reactionary policy positions that we all know full well are purely cynically motivated by trying to keep the votes of a reactionary section of the working class. This kind of cowardice and cynical pandering to the bigotry isn't actually justifiable and we should work constructively to overcome it. There is basically no excuse for communists not to be at the vanguard of social progress and liberation for every vulnerable group within the working class.
What is the minimum programme would you support in a capitalist country? Say, what separates MLs from social democrats/reformists?
Well I am a bit black pilled that I don't think anyone on both left and right can and will get elected in liberal democracy.
I see liberal democracy as its own dictatorship that claims to be free and support freedoms. Its a dictatorship with a smile. They have certain limits on how far you can go. For example Bernie and even AOC is the "Farthest" you can go. I think anyone outright Communist no matter their strand would be couped, or have every power work against them. Like say France elected their Communist party. I am 99% certain that either NATO would intervene or support some counter coup and then make up some story on how they were mean and evil, or they would pump up bureaucracy to make it ineffective.
I can't speak for all MLs but change will probably never be seen with a vote but with a revolution.
It varies by cultures but by and large LGBT rights and shit are supported by the left and most Communist parties. It isn't like the fascist parties that openly state they will hang gays and kill them. Like off the top of my head I know USA, British, and French communist parties are pro-gay shit.
Another example is Cuba who despite conservatives wailing on it and try to use pink washing, has more LGBT rights then USA. Knew of at least on quittance who was a Cuban trap with a boyfriend and they were very openly about their relationship and the one being, well a trap. So take of that as how you want.
Yeah, I feel the same way. Besides that, what praxis do you support outside of voting? I mean, I know violent revolution is one route, and is inevitable, however, such an event isn't happening any time soon imo.
Lol, Lenin said that he wouldn't see a revolution in his life time.
All you need is one Great Depression, one Meatgrinder war, and we are bound to have both within several years.
Dual power. Work with people in your community to help the needy, encourage development of coops businesses, actually challenge local politics. Do this not just because it will improve living standards of working class but also to organize a group that can take state power in your area should the situation arise. One example is Cooperation Jackson. We don't know when the opportunities will come but we can prepare.
Does anybody have the holodomor sources from the argument that derailed the OC thread a while back?
Brainlet-tier infograph which is implicitly anti-communist in denying the undeniable achievements of Democratic Kampuchea between 1975-79. You think I’m just joking, but seriously stop believing the bourgeois and Vietnamese atrocity propaganda, Zig Forums should be better than this.
You mean their "great achievements" in implementing Narodnik barracks-communism, having the former king as a figurehead head of state, declaring a "race war" on Vietnam, etc.? bannedthought.net/International/RIM/AWTW/1999-25/PolPot_eng25.htm They clearly weren't US backed in 1975 when they took out the US puppet Lon Nol, but it is true that they were supported by the US and CIA after the war with Vietnam began, as part of the coalition they formed with liberal and monarchists. CPK switched to social democracy in 1981 and some years later later switched from that to liberal democracy. Pol Pot himself would later claim that "it is over for communism" and that Cambodia should be aligned with the west. Although to be fair, the PRK and KPRP were not much better with their capitulation to liberalism after Vietnam left. The current Prime Minister in capitalist Cambodia was a prominent figure in the PRK.