You're viewing part of a thread.
I don’t know much about the armenian genocide, always thought that was the Turkish nationalists thing.
I don’t know who you’ve been talking to or what they’ve been saying. I do know that an astounding number of people who’ve written extensively on the famine calling it holodomor have turned around in the last twenty years, usually after seeing soviet records, and said “well, it’s not actually a genocide”.
I understand how it feels to hear someone say that an atrocity is made up or deserved. Maybe we both have the same holocaust denying uncle. The difference here is that one was confirmed explicitly in record and the other was not.
It’s real disheartening seeing people try that buffoonish no true scotsman garbage but what can you do. Nothing derails a head full of steam over wages like six hundred words on the gonzolites.
Tbh I'm not sure why they usually deny that one either, but for some reason they are commonly linked when I find those people in the wild, honestly I was hoping you could tell me lol.
You do indeed seem different, even though I'm still not sold on the whole "holodomor wasn't a genocide" thing, but still you're not the same as them at least, so that's cool.
If you get a chance, read wheatcrofts responses to his own damn book years of hunger. He’s no commie and speaks fluent russian and was one of the important people involved in figuring out the archives after the ussr fell.
When he came out and said something to the effect of “it might have been uncaring murderous stalinist policy but it doesn’t rise to the level of genocide” the whole western historical community did a spit take.
Better yet, stop engaging in polemic with communists and just read history and theory instead.
Ah ok, I'll read that, but imo that sounds like "it might have been light genocide, but it wasn't real genocide™" so far.
Still my point stands though, them simply saying that "the holodomor is western propaganda" without then saying "it was just murderous and uncaring stalinists" sounds like denial, especially if they then don't continue with "and it was bad" but rather "and Stalin was the best." Whether or not that denial is "genocide denial" or "murderous uncaring stalinist denial" matters little to me.
I've read some, albeit not everything and I never will, as I prefer individual liberty to collectivism personally and that is a difference too fundimental to overcome. Agorists are alright, I prefer their approach.
Is a light genocide like when they use aspartame instead of hfcs?
When people say the holodomor is western propaganda they are saying that there was no genocidal famine because there was no genocide. They aren’t saying it because they love stalin but because a bunch of historians came around and said “actually there’s not evidence for a genocide”.
The word holodomor means (and I’m paraphrasing here because meaning has changed over time) “genocide famine”. The term was popularized in the west by radio free europe. So if the word can’t be true and it was a cia talking point that’s your western propaganda.
Tbh I wouldnt lead with that because you have to basically drag someone kicking and screaming to it and they’ll still insist you perform the litany of rejecting stalin immediately afterwards.
I don’t suggest you read communist theory to change your mind, but because you’re obviously not interested in trading slogans with people and probably would get more out of it than the people that plow through capital thinking it’ll make them smart.
If nothing else, read state and revolution. It’s super short and pokes some hundred year old holes in anarchist thought that still bug em today.
Well, is there a trans genocide in the US like the Trans people are claiming? Would you call it a genocide if the racists in America decided that areas with a majority black population should be the ones to starve because of a murderous and uncaring president?
Yeah, you maybe. Or if so they should say that instead of "it's western propaganda, stalin did nothing wrong he was the best" but they don't.
Whatever your opinions, downplaying the severity and hand waving away "murderous and uncaring" isn't a good look, it sounds like Trump supporters dude. "Stalin could kill a man in Times Square and still get elected president."
Oh, so you're suprised people who don't support murder and genocide would expect you to not like your murderous uncaring cult of personality? Yeah, me too. Just shocked I tell ya. C'mon dude be real, "it was just murder and uncaring" is not the W you think it is, they know that, I know that, and deep down I think you know that.
Alright, I'll give that one a read, thanks.
Generally speaking, again: I don’t know who you’ve been talking to or what they’ve said, the push against holodomor isn’t to downplay the extent of death, depravation or suffering. The only thing people are trying to say is that it wasn’t a genocide because it wasn’t a series of decisions that explicitly targeted the ukranian population for eradication.
Just so we can stop retreading this ground: there is no downplaying happening here. A bunch of scholars say that there isn’t evidence for a genocide. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t absolute desolation. In some ways the extent is expanded because we can now include the rest of the volga and kazakhstan, which is the real nightmare but never got the kind of traction ukrane did.
No one thinks it’s a win to have a famine where millions died.
The argument for a trans genocide is based on systemic targeting for eradication and shouldn’t be compared to the famine because one is an event that happened nearly a hundred years ago with an extensive (and evolving) historical context and understanding and the other is something happening right now.
Without equal levels of applied scholarship and a precise framework for analysis, comparing the two ends up being that sort of suffering Olympics vernacular that classier people call crass and I tend to just call shitty.
Another book worth checking out is stalins world. It’s not written sympathetically by any means.