#you can and should criticize the ussr

[geisterland]

I can’t take people misunderstanding the alliance between the ussr and nazi germany anymore help me

[mesetacadre]

I'm far from the first person to say this but there is a lot of overcompensating that goes on when communists oppose criticisms of specific communist figureheads. Stalin did not personally order the genocide of millions of people but he also wasn't the sole builder of socialism, nor was he the source of every good policy the USSR implemented. Same goes for Mao, Honecker, Lenin, Castro, etc. I don't think I need to harp on about why it's a remain of liberal historiography and ideology, although that should be acknowledged. Following in the same vein as this other post of mine, it constitutes a conscious and prolongued effort as a communist to adopt class, and more generally, a focus on the collective and processes instead of individual actions as the vehicle of your discourse. The better perspective with which to approach criticisms of a single transistor is to recontextualize it within the whole CPU that it's a part of, if you allow me the metaphor. You hinder yourself when you stoop down to the level of great man theory.

Lenin is a particular example because he tends to be great-manned both from the perspective of people criticizing and defending Stalin. He was neither a pure-hearted libertarian who was betrayed after his death by a conniving Stalin who hid Lenin's thought on him and who arrested/killed every other opponent, nor was Stalin a 1:1 replica of Lenin's positions but in a different stage of socialism. In both of these positions the role of the Bolshevik's party mechanisms and channels are completely ignored, as if it was a simple hereditary mechanism. In a democratic centralist organization, the Congress is the supreme organ of decision, and every office, from General Secretary to the base militant, is beholden to its decisions and has the duty to carry them out, as well as to contribute in its democratic process. Lenin was the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissar, sure, and the de facto "leader". The CPC was a mostly executive office, but like any other organ in the CP, it had a decided political role. The Congress is still the highest organ.

In the 13th Congress, when Stalin was elected to the position of General Secretary, there were 748 voting delegates. It is a misrepresentation of democratic-centralist principles to discount or ignore the vote of these 748 delegates. Lenin, as much as he was an important figure, was not the only politically competent communist, nor the only influential one. Never, even during the tensest months of the civil war or the underground work, was Lenin's criteria followed without criticism or input. He wasn't infallible or without fault, anyone can make mistakes or forget to consider some angles. This is also why Lenin was such a respected leader, because he did not govern alone. Stalin also governed like that, quite famously being skilled at listening to a discussion and being able to synthesize everyone's positions into a logical common ground. I am less concerned with what Lenin, at the end of his life, after two gunshots and a few strokes, personally thought of Stalin's aptness for the position, and more concerned with the opinions of those 748 delegates, all taking into account the discussions that took place in every lower organ of the party. What matters is that the party, democratically, elected Stalin to the position multiple times, and that his responsibility in leading cooperatively were proven competent throughout his tenure. Lenin was not an angel, nor the embodied spirit of revolutionary marxism. He was a very skilled and knowledgeable revolutionary whose words are not the gospel. The achievements made by Stalin's collective leadership (plus the entire party!) and the effective advancement of socialism are much more important than Lenin's opinion, as much as we can respect him. He wasn't clairvoyant

[ghostpalmtechnique]

Why your criticism of "capitalism" is so tiresome

I usually disagree with criticisms of "capitalism," but there are different reasons for this due to underlying terminological confusion: you can think of this as a 2x2 matrix where the quadrants represent "I agree with your premise {yes/no}" and "the thing you are angry about is actually capitalism {yes/no}".

There is a small class of genuinely radical leftists that object to all private investment, market transactions, etc. (Category: no/mostly yes) I do not believe that the planning problem is solvable even with currently-unavailable tech such as superhuman AI, nor do I think the "people respond to incentives" problem would go away even if you did otherwise solve it. (It's pretty notable that every example that people can point to of societies that ostensibly don't display this behavior are near-subsistence economies .)

There are people who think the welfare state is too weak. "We should be more like Scandinavia." (Category: yes/no) The US is a mixed economy. Denmark and Sweden are mixed economies. We could move the dial on tax-and-transfer a lot and still be capitalist, just like Scandinavia is.

There are people who think "capitalism is the reason poverty exists." (Category: no/no? This thinking is so confused that it's hard to categorize.) The default state of humanity is poverty. Our ability to climb out of that has been dependent on productive investment. The major modernization pushes in Communist USSR and China depended on market-based exports to the rest of the world and would have failed faster and harder as an attempt at centrally-planned autarky. They were free-riding on capitalism.

There are people who think capitalism is bad because it's a impersonal system where people are transactional and don't care about other people. (Category: mostly no/no) First of all, this isn't a distinguishing feature of capitalism. Mercantilist and communist states have been equally suffused with impersonal bureaucracy. Second of all, a system where your ability to get things you need depends on your ability to pay for them and/or fill out the right paperwork is almost always safer and better than a system where your ability to get what you need depends on having the right connections and/or being well-liked (or just likeable). To actually *be* better, of course, requires certain public measures to ensure everyone has the resources and knowledge to access them; however, see previous paragraph.

There are people who wouldn't actually be able to articulate a general criticism of capitalism because their actual complaint is "the status quo gives me personally less wealth and status than I think I should have." You can probably guess what quadrant this is in.

[sgiandubh]

T is the weakest link, find out the truth about his “real” life and we will have answers to so many of our questions.

Dear Weakest Link Anon,

I couldn't agree more, based on my own (and other like minded people's) research. We knew Mordor's national sport is Compulsive Lying, but the contrast between cold, hard, real facts and the absurd narrative that is never questioned across the street is still shocking.

I explained many times already the reasons that prevent me from publishing and commenting my findings. I can only encourage you to make a simple research on public business databases. It's all on screen, of course...or, in this case, it's all on those websites. Costs are low.

His real life has nothing glamorous about it.

And yes, I know the main argument peddled by the Idiot Twins all day long, every day God makes: a legal document is FACT, TRUTH and an undisputable sign of marital bliss.

These people mentally live in a grotto (calm down, it's about Plato, here). So, according to them, the following legal document MUST come from a legit democratic country, right?

Right?

This is a quote from Stalin's Constitution, ratified by the Eighth Congress of Soviets of the USSR in December 1936, just after the First Moscow Trial of the Party's dissident groups.

By 1937, the Great Purge was building up momentum. The privacy of millions was violated, while many (so many) were tortured, tried in haste and disposed of. Millions of letters were opened, their content scrutinized. The madness temporarily stopped in earnest only with the outbreak of WWII. 1.2 million people were killed in the process.

At the very same moment, other millions of people firmly, even sincerely, believed it was all for the best, FACT, TRUTH and the only possible way reality should look like.

Like in Stalin's Soviet Union, critical examination and contextualization seem to be forbidden in the Land of the Soviets Best Fans Ever. Any questioning or unorthodox behavior is met with kindness: 'the mental ward' is the last trend. It immediately made me think about the fact that in the same Soviet Union, after the war, dissidents were not labeled as political criminals, but as 'psychiatric ward patients'.

The easiest, cheapest and most effective way of ostracizing. And one of the main reasons C's Oscar promo campaign was a resounding flop.

Meanwhile, tax debts, failed projects and flimsy whereabouts seem to tell the pertinent story for your ask, Anon.

[dextixer]

Finally! My friend, i thought you will never reach me! Right, i will start with RWBY first if you do not mind.

1 - I first suggest researching what fascism is. Because under no definition is Ironwood a fascist, especially not in V7. RWBY fans have such a shit understanding of politics that i am half convinced most of you arent even of voting age and get your political takes from twitter only.

2 - Most RWDE/critics etc defend Ironwood actions in V7 and raising Atlas from Salems reach. Let me remind you that Ironwood was evacuating Mantle to Atlas and only stopped because Salem was coming. And Salem reaching Atlas means everyone dies. Now, maybe you are of the opinion that everyone should die and call it “equality”, but i am of the opinion that saving some people is better than saving none.

3. People do not consume media in a vacuum, but neither does their media consumption say what kind of person they are. Nor the characters they like.

Now onto the Anime bit.

Okay, dont tell anyone this secret but... I also pirate Anime and do not buy Anime merch. Because i know how shit the working conditions in Japan are, and i know that me paying money for the work of the artists aint gonna actually go to them. So... Thats not a gotcha...

I am an equal opportunity pirate in this regard.

On the topic of Ukraine. Sorry people, i know its a RWBY post but some politics will get into this now.

I am of the personal belief that nations should not be invaded and their people subjugated and exterminated. I live in Lithuania, a country that was militarily occupied by USSR and had 100k+ of our citizens, including women and children banished to Siberia, to die. Considering the crimes unveiled at Bucha and Russian Federation unabashed genocidal rhetoric, i do not want Ukraine to experience the same, or even worse fate.

Especially since i work with many Ukrainian refugees and i can literally see my country change in real time. Its sad that it is due to a war. But its heartening to see the unity that many people display.

Is Ukraine a perfect victim that has no problems? No. It still should not be invaded and its people should not be killed for the imperialist ambitions of yet another Russian fucking bastard.

As far as Nazis in my server? Who? Care to give me a nickname so i could investigate them and remove them? Because i am not aware of any nazis in my server.

@bogeymanbackup

[gryficowa]

Boycott!

"If you hate America, why do you like TOH and GF?", I don't know, I love Soviet cartoons, so I should love the USSR?

Seriously, I have the right to hate politics and many things in different countries (And no, it's not about the shops, I don't understand Europeans who are shocked that there is FUCKING FOOD in the shops, it's just weird to me and I'm from fucking Europe) , seriously, I don't like the UK for transphobia and many other things, I hate France for its Islamophobia, so this means that cartoons are automatically bad, even if they are created by great people? Well, that doesn't make sense…

It's just that as long as it doesn't say that being a bigot is OK, it's probably positive work, no matter how fucked up a country is…

Now that I have your attention:

[zorciarkrildrush]

I really get and support conscientious objection to military service, but I think it's also worth reminding mainly Americans but definitely not only Americans that Israel's wars are not comparable to things like Vietnam (where dodging the draft was, obviously, the thing people like me would be supporting), and definitely not Iraq and Afghanistan or any other damn overseas conflict they grew up with. I get that you did not, and will likely never experience actual frequent attempts to invade and destroy your country and your people. That's good! I get why for you, military service seems morally indefensible. You wouldn't catch me calling you wrong, or a weak hearted liberal, or any other damn thing. You think the service itself is wrong, that serving an armed force in any capacity is wrong, and I really get that!

But Israeli troops - conscripts in compulsory service (which of course, they would go to jail for dodging) and reservists and NCOs and so on, aren't opting for overseas operations done purely for funsies and capitalism and fear of the USSR. You must recognize this false equivalency is very prevalent, even when your criticisms of the Israeli government and the IDF are very true and important. God knows I have a lot of criticism for both, jesus fucking christ do I. In the mind of every 18-year old dumbass kid, getting their first letter of conscription (which is again, compulsory and will be enforced with jailtime) - and also their parents, and their grandparents, is actual and real danger to their lives. Our neighbours invading with the real, publicly expressed intent of killing us, of demolishing our homes and driving us to the sea as a whole. This isn't a proxy war overseas, where they can just not go and be fine with it - there are actual people with guns and they're firing actual rockets aimed at your mom and everybody else you know. People with guns are breaching the fence with the express purpose of murdering you and your family. Not random Palestinians or other Arabs just trying to live their life - actual governments with actual armed forces, who use those armed forces to kill you. Hell, you probably know someone, either directly or one step removed, who violently died because of it. This was true since Israel's inception, and the staggering amount of times it happened is not something you can just solve with "well they shouldn't have done so and so!". Because yes, certainly, the Israeli government shouldn't have done a lot of things, and maybe you'll say those dastardly Zionists should have never wanted to come here, seeing how nice and safe and wanted they felt back home. But discussing what people shouldn't have done is very nice, especially when it doesn't personally affect you, especially when you never lived with the frequent and real danger of violent death - but I'd also suggest it doesn't really help anyone. Certainly the person currently launching a rocket aimed at my house shouldn't have opted to do that, and certainly the person who chose to pick up a gun and fire at me shouldn't have done so either, but I'd really prefer to talk about what we should do now - what the actual solution is for both Palestinian and Israeli parents to stop losing sons and daughters to violence every fucking year of their lives. Is that okay? Is that allowed? Or is it more effective to just say an 18 year old kid, commanded to pick up a gun and watch for someone coming over to kill their mom, which is a constant and real threat and has been for decades, is a mindless murder monster? That he's doing it for funsies and due to brainwashing only? My answer might surprise you.

[cowpokezuko]

I hate the way that Americans and westerners treat the USSR and the KGB as the most evil organizations to ever exist but will laugh off the crimes committed by the CIA, FBI, and US Military. Everything the USSR and KGB did that was bad the US has matched beat for beat. How can you take a critical eye to the ethnic cleansings done by Stalin but refuse to acknowledge what the US government did to Native Americans or the plethora of Latin America and Asian nations the CIA destabilized and installed dictators who slaughtered thousands of their own citizens.

This is an admittedly selfish grip. Of course, I fucking hate the US government and believe in some sort of restructuring of it to be less comically vile, but this specific complaint comes from a frustration of how people react when someone dares to say something slightly positive about communism or worse, the soviet union. There is nothing more distracting in a conversation than having to qualify any statements with 'I know that they did a lot of bad things...'. It is not productive 90% of the time. This is especially the case when it comes to an academic setting where people should be able to understand the nuance of the soviet period but for whatever reason we just can't be mature about it.

TL:DR The Soviet Union has an extremely complex history, there are a lot of awful things in their books. That comes with the territory of being one of the most powerful countries on the planet. However, if your critiques of imperialism and state violence start and end with communist countries you should probably start looking into the actions of capitalist governments.

P.S. Watch Chill Goblin's video on the Kennedy assassination and his video on the blunders of the CIA

[notaplaceofhonour]

Hey @frankujito, what exactly about Holocaust denial, Khazar theory, and calls for the genocide of Jews puts antisemitism in scarequotes? Because that’s what I’m talking about, not mere criticism of Israel.

Don’t bother answering, though. The question is rhetorical and you’re already blocked. And I will continue blocking anyone else who denies or seeks to whitewash the antisemitism of these things or anyone who espouses them.

But I thought I’d highlight how this response illustrates just how blatant and obvious the lies are that some leftists will tell about Jewish leftists who dare criticize the antisemitism around them.

For instance, they claim I made no mention of Israel’s crimes, when in fact I very obviously did—more than once in that post. I even start the post they’re replying to with an acknowledgment that Israel abuses the Palestinians, and every sentence that follows takes as a given that Israel is in the wrong in how it treats the Palestinian people and commits crimes against them. I even say:

Oppose Bibi Netanyahu. Oppose Israel’s far-right, authoritarian government. Oppose its apartheid policies. Oppose its violent abuse of the Palestinian people. That isn’t antisemitic.

I go into further criticisms of Israel in greater detail elsewhere (a country I have never been to and have no ties to, and lord willing will never have to flee to, but apparently need to constantly be criticizing simply because I’m Jewish).

I should not have to make an itemized list of every specific crime the Israeli government has ever done in the moment just to talk about how the left shouldn’t embrace Holocaust denial and bombing civilians—just as I don’t need to list out every crime of Japanese Imperialism to talk about how the US bombing Japan was bad, or list out every crime the US has committed to talk about how the OKC bombing was bad, or list out every crime of the Catholic Church to discuss how Protestant anti-Catholicism is often rooted in bigotry. But you know as well as I do that you would not have been willing to listen even if I had sat there and listed out literally every crime that has ever been committed by the state of Israel or even every Jew in all of history.

My post about the left’s embrace of Hamas’ antisemitism was not made “the moment Palestinians were afforded a chance of freedom”. It wasn’t even made the moment some on the American and European Left started embracing antisemitic conspiracy theories like the Khazar theory and claims of Israeli “deep pockets” and control of mass media (side note: I wrote this line before I saw that this person continued on their tirade, in which they invoked exactly these tropes from the Protocols). It is only after YEARS of escalating and increasingly blatant calls for & acts of violence against Jews caused by the rhetoric I am criticizing that I made that post.

I could not have been more measured and nuanced without just shrugging my shoulders and saying “eh, what’s a little Holocaust Denial?”. But this person using the word “nuance” as a pejorative, as something I somehow shouldn’t have been engaging in, speaks volumes about where this attitude comes from. Some people just do not want to wrestle with the fact that a decades-long conflict between the corrupt governments of two oppressed peoples is going to be complex and complicated to engage with, and they will eagerly flatten it into a black-and-white, us-vs-them battle between the virtuous heroes and the dastardly evil villains.

And when anyone engages with this complexity, it is easier to lie and say they didn’t say what they said or that they don’t actually mean it, so you can sort everyone into “the good camp” and “the bad camp”. This Campist logic is exactly the same way of thinking that leads some people on the left to deny the atrocities of the USSR and/or side with modern Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Don’t fall for it.

[penultimate-step]

JJK S2 Livewatch: Eps 8-12

Hello, everybody! Sorry for taking so long to continue this live reaction. Since this is the part where the fights start in earnest, I had a lot less to say about the show's specifics and more general rambling thoughts I had as watching. It made me unsure about how to write this part up, and I ended up taking way longer than I should have (I watched these eps weeks ago!) Not sure if this will make the livewatch more or less entertaining to read along. But at this point I am going to post and hope for the best. Hope nobody is disappointed.

So, following up the end of the last ep, Gojo is called out to the danger zone. It's emphasized how much he's the one guy who matters and can do anything here. Which does kind of make me have thoughts about the worldbuilding.

Ok, so, what is the size of the jujutsu world, exactly?

Between Gojo and Tengen, we have multiple individuals who apparently single handedly hold the jujutsu world on their shoulders. That is so many points of failure, so many points where things could just go catastrophically wrong at any moment, presumably dooming the world. I know that this is primarily in order to place the plot focus on the important people. but it feels less like the jujutsu world is an institution or a world on its own, and more like a small club. Which could be fine, but its established that curses appear constantly, all over the world. It's hard to believe that a group small enough to need a handful of people to hold critical roles could cover the whole nation We know there are only 2 jujutsu schools in japan, and its unknown how many elsewhere but presumably an equivalent amount. We've seen most of the students at the school competition arc, and there were less than a dozen altogether. So....what's going on here? It just seems kind of arbitrary, and makes the world feel more constructed - which, of course, it is, being a fictional world, but generally we prefer when the guiding hand of the author is less obtrusive.

Some comparisons that can be made are to Naruto, the manga which I am almost certain is JJK's biggest inspiration, and to Chainsaw Man, a contemporary peer. Naruto's worldbuilding is large and sprawling, with plenty of named organizations, locations, and events offscreen. out of universe info books and spinoffs help add detail to this, but aren't necessary. There, it is believable that any given character exists in the context of the world because the world exists as background. in contrast, chainsaw man shares a much tighter focus with jjk. much less exacting detail, minor characters, etc; a greater focus on a small cast. There is no greater detail, readers know nothing about the structure of hell, the goings-on in the US or USSR, or even other divisions and areas in japan. but there is enough there to maintain an illusion that the world exists - mentions of foreign countries, occasional shots of hunters or political leaders. Sure, it's not the same as actually detailing in the world, but there's no need to go that far - enough has been sketched in that the readers can imagine the characters getting on a plane and flying to another country, even if they don't have any details about the destination, it feels like they exist in a real world with real places that the camera just doesn't turn to.

This might seem like I'm being overly harsh to the setting. it is clearly an intentional choice to have Gojo be the lynchpin of the world, there's nothing inherently wrong with it. But as someone who loves urban fantasy as a setting, it does sometimes bother me when I feel like the world exists only for the convenience of the main cast. It's a world close enough to our own that I feel like it should make sense.

Anyway, that's enough of that. Moving on to actually talking about the events of the episodes. I did warn you at the start that I had less to say about this set, though.

The fight between Yuuji and the locust curse isn't a bad fight to reintroduce us to the main protagonist. It's smoothly animated, outside some hiccups when jumping through walls, and the fact that both fighters use fully physical techniques made the whole thing seem very even and straightforward.

It's outshone completely by the Gojo vs villain gang battle at the end of 8 and through 9, though. I love when hidden world fantasy type settings use the clash between the normal world and the fantastical, setting these fights in a crowded city subway was a cool enough idea already, but the villain plan to use ordinary citizens to box gojo in, the use of trains in the battle, all hammered it in. the way the battle goes on around them while they can't even see most of it is interesting.

The almost wild, ruthless way Gojo speaks and fights in this battle make it clear he's been pushed very far. Between this and the flashback eps, S2 hasn't been shy about showing Gojo struggling and on the edge, a stark contrast to the way he was essentially the plot device "I win" button in his season 1 appearances. Where many of his memorable moments then had him floating at a distance to his opponents, untouchable as his technique, this fight is brutally physical. The moment he grabs at Hanami's branches was visceral. I was actually really surprised to see Hanami die. When he had Hanami against the wall, I started saying out loud "You know, the ruthlessly strategic thing to do here would be go for the killing blow on the weakened enemy. I just know Hanami is going to come back and cause trouble in future arcs. But it makes sense the author wouldn't want to waste a villain with so much buildup like that." And then he actually did kill him. Okay! Message received, Gege! I'll stay on my toes a bit more!

Also, as an aside (much as the show does,) I really liked the villain interludes. Seeing them messing around playing games in their free time did a lot to add to their characterization, even if it was just a way to exposit their plans to the audience.

While I'm giving praise, the sound design and music team did a great job. There's so much that wordlessly conveys the emotions going on mid-scene without having to stop and actually demonstrate them. the ominous overlay on the villains, the frenetic piano as gojo rushes to use his domain, and the most evocative of all, the soft and emotional tunes of shock when Gojo sees Geto again.

Also, this is the part where I have to embarrassedly admit that I was already spoiled on present day geto being fake. Rather, I was so spoiled that I assumed it wasn't a spoiler and was revealed in S1, until seeing the big reveal scene made me realize someone must have told me about this years ago. Whoops. Apologies if any of my followers were waiting for my reaction to that bit :(

Ep 10 is mostly a bridge and setup for the next portion, but I do have some brief thoughts on the new characters to touch on before moving on. The drinking old man is not endearing himself to me with his flippancy, the curse user with the hand sword from season 1 is back, and still kind of annoying whenever he's on screen. The unnamed white-haired girl with him seems cool though. also, this may be kind of a late moment to say this, but I really do like mahito as a character. Some of his transfiguration stunts were genuinely unsettling, and the way he alternates between that kind of cruelty and his general playful attitude makes him pretty fun to have on screen. He's far and away my favorite of the present day villains.

Skipping ahead to the fights in eps 11 and 12. The montage of murders by the curse users actually disgusted me. Which is kind of funny to contrast with the appearance and fighting style of the man who fights Yuuji and Megumi in this episode. His face and movements are different than most of the cast, reminding me more of some kind of demonic looney tunes character, jumping around and letting hits bounce off him. The fight is a cool showcase of 10 shadows, as well as giving some fun interactions between Yuuji and Megumi.

Actually, as I look back on it, I'm somewhat more impressed by this bit than I was as I was actually watching. None of the individual moments are super impressive or thought provoking, but as I come in to write down thoughts I realize that this two episode span seamlessly transitions between 4 different fights, done well enough that I didn't see it as an interruption, and only realized while writing this about it afterwards.

I don't want to dwell too much on the Nobara and Nanami vs hand guy fight, because that guys icks me out. Mei Mei's fight is mostly offscreen, but I do have a meme about it, because I cannot stop my brain from making unfortunate connections. The fight between the masked sorcerer (I don't remember if we got his name?) and the pair on the rooftop, though. It starts pretty slow - I don't think either of their powers or the way they use them are very interesting - but things tick up immediately when Toji shows up. Just like in the flashback arc, he just grabs the attention in every scene he's in, an

While I'm on the topic, one thing I noticed is how efficient the flashback arc was. Pretty much every element from there makes a direct return now, not even 10 episodes after the fact. Geto and Toji are shown off in the past right in time for them to be introduced in the main plot, not wasted elements. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing but it did feel noticeable. Possibly this ties back to the stuff I was talking about at the start of this, where JJK keeps making the tradeoff of telling a tighter and more focused story while cutting lose any elements that could be seen as extraneous, for better or for worse.

Anyway, that wraps up that watch session. It was pretty good, I didn't enjoy it as much as I liked eps 1-5, but much more than I liked 6-7. as a whole I think I can start to calibrate my expectations for how good this seasons is going to be now, very well executed but much more straightforward than that first arc would suggest. Less exploration of world and characters, more cool fights and action scenes.

I feel like I said a lot without actually saying very much, I worry that this was almost entirely recap of things any watcher knows already. I'll try and write the next section much faster, and hopefully I'll have more interesting things to say about that one.

[mesetacadre]

Regarding your post on Stalin and Lenin, I want to ask in good faith: how can honest Communists, in good conscience, acknowledge the material harm and the death tolls of the deportations of the Crimean Tatars, Soviet Koreans, and Chechens + Ingush carried out by Stalin's administration?

I at least understand why Marxist-Leninists dispute calling the Holodomor and Kazakh famines genocides, on the grounds that they came about as a mix of failed policy, bad weather, and unintended consequences.

However, while Stalin's influence on the Famines is debatable, allowing the deportations to be carried out (which DO constitute a genocide) must certainly fall on his head. This is doubly so because Lavrentiy Beria - the principal architect of the Crimean Tatar and Chechen deportations - was a close ally of Stalin.

A big reason I ask this is because I frequently see other communists either gloss over the material harm of these deportations, or treat them as a regrettable footnote in an otherwise proud career. I find both approaches problematic, because I do not see them as an honest assessment of Stalin's wrongdoing with regards to ethnic minorities within the Soviet Union.

I thank you for your time, and I look forward to reading your assessment, should you chose to answer it. Have a good day.

[context]

I'll get to the ask itself in a moment, but first I want to point out how you're doing exactly what the post you're replying to is criticizing, how every mistake and imperfect policy of the USSR between 1924 and 1953 is scapegoated to Stalin. You're ignoring both the very important structures of democracy and accountability within the party as well as in the administration of the state. He wasn't a dictator and policy was not a direct extension of the man's thoughts. The party leadership was a collective organ made up of at least a dozen people, of which Stalin was simply the chairman, with the same vote as everyone else. And every single one of these members were beholden to democratic recall at any time.

Let's start on the common ground, we understand that the famine which struck Ukraine, southern Russia and western Kazakhstan in the early 1930s has a context of cyclical famines, grain hoarding, rushed collectivization, and bad weather. There has been a strong effort on the part of capitalist powers to both exaggerate the effects of the famine and to place it all with intent to exterminate Ukranians specifically. The policy of collectivization and antagonism towards the grain-hoarding rich peasants was one approved by and carried out by hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. We can debate the degree of maliciousness, the severity of its effects, etc. But what is indisputable once you know just a little of how the USSR worked, to pretend that it could all be carried out by Stalin's sole will is absurd.

And what is the context of the deportations? The fascist invasion of the USSR. This is an extraordinary circumstance, every facet of the USSR was being attacked and threatened with sabotage. It wasn't even the first time they had had to deal with internal sabotage, like it was revealed in the trials following the assassination of Kirov. Throughout the 30s, Nazi Germany's strongarm diplomacy was practically enabled by their ability to create fifth columns, to instigate conflict and to infiltrate. They were in the process of setting up a coup d'etat in Lithuania when, with only a week to spare, it was voted that Lithuania would join the USSR. So, the fear that, as the front advanced, the nazis would do everything in their power to turn the tapestry of nationalities close to the front against the USSR, wasn't only unfounded, it was certain. Fascists are also quite famously brutal against the minorities in the territories they conquered. Their modus operandi whenever they captured a population was to kill any elected leaders and start to instigate anti-semitism.

This was the rationale that drove the policy of resettlement. It was a rushed wartime decision, such was the context, and people definitely died unnecessarily in transport. They decided that the negative consequences of resettlement outweighed the risk of sabotage, destroyed supply lines, and of a completely certain brutal destiny for these minorities if the front advanced past them. It was not a genocide, and it had nothing to do with whatever personal relationship you think Stalin had with Beria. (As a tangent, in this interview, Stalin's bodyguard said that Beria was "neither his [Stalin's] right hand man or left hand man"). I reiterate though, the personal relationships of one man did not dictate the policy decided on democratically by the CPSU.

I don't see the problem in understanding the context of these decisions and understanding the rationale behind them without kneejerking into discounting Stalin's competency. It's very easy to criticize a decision with 80 years of hindsight, without the pressure of the largest land invasion ever carried out advancing steadily. You can't understand the policies of a country containing hundreds of millions of people and hundreds of nationalities through the lens of a single man's personal failings, especially in wartime. Admitting these mistakes, but understanding the context in which they were made, is the only way to learn from other attempts at developing socialism. What is not productive is to insist on pinning every mistake, every unnecessary pain, every inefficiency, as the wrongdoings of a single man. It's dishonest to both the past, and to how communists organize today.

[fromcydonia]

what do you mean "you people" I'm not that other anon but my best friend in the world is jewish and a few years ago i was considering converting to judaism because my grandma might've been jewish (i didn't because the religion i would have to renounce is 100x rarer than judaism) you're making a lot of generalisations about all the people who support Palestine. I'm not saying there aren't bigots who do because I have seen them but generalising like that is an asshole move. I love Jewish people and Judaism and I don't support genocide.

by "you people" i mean the people who are trying to dehumanize zionists and israelis in any way they can, people who say israel has no right to defend itself, people who swallow every lie and keep calling a war a genocide while they clearly dont know much about this war

those people say they care about human lives but this is just another trend that lets them feel important, and they can't face the truth or ask the tough questions, and it leads to them saying "israel has no right to defend itself" meaning they want israelis to just die, and "hamas has the right to fight" meaning they want more innocent palestinians dead and of course they keep spreading lies or half truths but they dont care how much it risks lives (israelis, palestinians and jews)

anyway im happy your best friend is jewish and that you almost converted u really should get a medal

but judaism is more than just a religion, it's a culture and binds us together, and we should care about each other cause as history teaches us, we can only count on each other.

jews who may live comfortably and safely should know it doesnt mean other jews do. they should see israelis as human being, and try to understand where they come from (both the left and the right in israel), because jews has endured a lot and we are all human with a lot of trauma. i call settlers and some of right wingers "facists" but i can see why they think what they think. i dont justify them, and i think it's fucked up, but i can see what led them there because they are human.

the same can be said aboutbother israelis. a white american jew can criticize israelis for going to the military or support the war or even being in israel. but the truth is, some of the jews are in israel because their grandparents fled the holocaust or survived it and had nowhere to go, some survived the farhud, some fled from other arab countries (mine from yemen), some were rescued by israel (ethiopian jews), some fled from progroms in ussr.

not all of us were so lucky to go to the US. and some of us were saved by israel. we want to protect our country because there is nowhere to go, and even more, we love our country because we love each other and would die to keep each other safe. and this is zionism.

btw this love doesnt mean we cant criticize israel as well. im so angry about this country and this government but it's out of love, because i know this country is amazing and its people are the best, and we deserve more.

well i wrote a lot. what im trying to say, if you love jewish people, you should talk more to israelis, we are human. you can see us as human and be against the war. and of course remember not all jews are lucky as white american jews. not all of us can be safe without israel.

[sixty-silver-wishes]

Tumblr's Guide to Shostakovich- Part 4: Establishing a Star

It's been a while since my last Tumblr's Guide to Shostakovich; I'm so sorry! I've got a ton of projects I'm working on and I just haven't had time for this one. But now that I'm back, it's time to cover the late 20s and early 30s, which is quite a bit of ground.

So, after the composition of his First Symphony in 1925, Shostakovich was quickly becoming noticed, both within the USSR and internationally. 1927 proved to be a consequential year for him, as he began performing as a concert pianist and participated in the First International Chopin Competition in Warsaw, although he did not place among the winners. Nonetheless, he regarded the competition as a success in a letter to his mother, from February 1, 1927. The pianist Nathan Perelman characterized Shostakovich's pianistic style as such:

Shostakovich emphasized the linear aspect of music and was very precise in all the details of performance. He used little rubato in his playing, and it lacked extreme dynamic contrasts. It was an ‘anti-sentimental’ approach to playing which showed incredible clarity of thought. You could say that his playing was very modern; at the time we accepted it and took it to our hearts. But it made less impression in Warsaw, where [Lev] Oborin’s more decorative, charming and ‘worldly’ approach, albeit somewhat militaristic, was the order of the day. However, Shostakovich seemed to foresee that, by the end of the twentieth century, his style of playing would predominate, and in this his pianism was truly contemporary.

(Participants and jury of the First International Chopin Competition, 1927. Shostakovich can be seen third from the left in the second row.)

1927 also saw an event that would once again change the course of Shostakovich's life- in addition to the composition of his Second Symphony (subtitled "To October"), we see in correspondence his first mentions of a foray into operatic composition. While Shostakovich had set words to music before (for instance, "To October" includes an ideological text by Aleksandr Bezyemensky), he decided to choose a work familiar to him as the subject of his first opera, The Nose by Nikolai Gogol, which he mentions in a letter to his friend, the critic Boleslav Yavorsky, on June 19, 1927. (Yavorsky was one of Shostakovich's primary correspondents until August of that year, when he met the polymath and scholar Ivan Sollertinsky, who was to become his closest friend. For more on Sollertinsky, I have a whole post on him here.)

Shostakovich was a lifelong Gogol enthusiast and even had many of his stories memorized by heart, which he was often fond of quoting, both in correspondence and conversation, so it should come as no surprise that he decided to adapt a Gogol story as his first opera, even writing the libretto himself and adapting long passages of the original short story into it (as well as references to other Gogol stories as well!). However, to those unacquainted with Shostakovich, The Nose seems like an unlikely choice for an operatic adaptation, especially considering the great canon of Russian-language literature that has historically been used for operatic adaptations, such as Tchaikovsky's Evgeny Onegin and Pikovaya Dama (or The Queen of Spades), both adapted from Pushkin. The Nose, on the surface, is a bizarre and comedic story, in which the main character, Collegiate Assessor Kovalyov, wakes up to find his nose removed from his face. The Nose is later found walking around Saint Petersburg, where it has gained sentience, talks, and even receives a promotion, much to the status-obsessed Kovalyov's chagrin. Kovalyov is unsuccessful in getting people to believe that his nose is now sentient, shenanigans ensue, and by the end, he wakes up once again to find his nose reattached, as Gogol's narrator remarks on the absurdity and ridiculousness of the story.

It seems like impossible subject matter for an opera, and yet, Shostakovich makes it work. With his penchant for sarcasm and the grotesque, as well as his use of inverting conventions of comedic and tragic music with the effect of making tragic situations seem ridiculous and ridiculous situations seem tragic, Shostakovich enriches Gogol's original Nose (assisted by the author's trademark skaz literary style) in his adaptation, while keeping it distinctly Gogolian. The Nose would be completed in 1928, and premiered in 1930, although it was not a success among the general public at the time, largely due to the avant-garde music and absurdist themes. It would not be performed in the USSR again until 1972.

(A poster for the premiere of The Nose at the Maly Opera Theatre, Saturday January 18th, 1930.)

In 1928, Shostakovich would make a strong connection with the theatre director and playwright Vsevolod Meyerhold, and wrote music for his theatre in Moscow. Shostakovich's stay with Meyerhold, as evidenced from letters to Sollertinsky, was less than ideal- he found Meyerhold and his wife, the actress Zinaida Raikh, to be at times obnoxious in the way they fawned over each other and their two children, and their nanny made unwanted advances on him- but found a career writing music for stage plays, most notably in collaboration with the poet and playwright Vladimir Mayakovsky, whose play The Bedbug he composed accompanying music for.

Shostakovich accepted a position at the theatre collective TRAM (Russian: Театр Рабочей Молодёжи, or Worker's Youth Theatre) in 1929, where he composed music for a number of ideological plays. Scholar Elizabeth Wilson notes that while Shostakovich enjoyed writing music for some of the TRAM plays, he also joined TRAM in an effort to shield himself from criticism from the RAPM (Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians), a more conservative musical branch that was, at the time, amassing power. The RAPM was in opposition at the time to the ACM (Association For Contemporary Music), and encouraged many elements that would later be incorporated into the Socialist Realism style that would take effect in the mid-30s. However, neither organization was around for long; the ACM was dissolved in 1931, while the RAPM was dissolved in 1932. While we know that Shostakovich was growing increasingly aware of the gradual restrictions being placed on music, in the coming decades, the intersection between Soviet politics and music would become unavoidable, and the next opera Shostakovich would compose in just a few years' meant he would find himself straight in the crossroads.

Thank you for reading! In the next entries, we’ll get further into the 30s, where there’s a lot to cover!

[qqueenofhades]

Uh, you see, you kind of also proved my point here:

“HOW DARE YOU CALL US ALL RACISTS AND TELL US TO BE QUIET??! Like my dude, my pal, my friend. That's quite a logical leap and represents the exact thing we're talking about here, so thanks for helping us demonstrate it.”

I specifically mentioned that I am not USA American. In fact, I too am from a country that used to be a part of USSR :) I just straight up don’t believe in communism and usually think that they are morons and should be socialists instead. And while I am white by American standards I am visibly identifiable member of an ethnic minority and I’ve experienced a lot of xenophobia in my life. I get it. I however don’t understand why did you pile me up with white american leftists, i did not live that white american life, come on.

I find a lot of American leftists annoying. Like yes a 22 year old self-proclaimed Stalinist is very alienating to me, a person who can be considered to be a victim of Stalinism.

However, that person does not have a political strategy! They are just a person, a very annoying one and one that I will consider to be malicious (because come on, Stalinism?????), and is probably abusive in online spaces, but all of that is just them being a bad or misguided person (or both). They don’t have a political strategy. AOC does, and the fact that someone wrote a propaganda piece that alienated someone’s dad is not the responisibilty of idk let me think of a username…. stalinspussykitty.tumblr.com, however vile this hypothetical person is.

The left is a minority in USA, one that has experienced a lot of prejudice, and as far as I know a lot of USA leftists are from marginalized groups. And people are largely alienated from the left because of the massive influence of the right-wing in USA, not because of loud and stupid kids.

Stupid kids are just stupid kids, and are not responsible for anyones fathers, that’s what I’m saying. I really do understand your frustration, but your argument reminds me of the “weird women alienate men from feminism” argument tbh

Okay, cool. We can agree on that much at least. But since I'm talking about this phenom in the American context, and by your own admission you're *not* American, we can also agree that there might be some cultural context to this that is specific to spaces that are American-centered and have direct impact on American politics, from which (through no fault of your own) you are at more of a remove. Likewise, "communists are bad, be socialists instead," is ALSO not going to be a winning message in America. It's just not.

Loud and stupid kids aren't the core problem with this or anything, and they're certainly (as my last post pointed out) not the biggest issue with a fundamentally racist, right-wing, reactionary country that casts every move toward the left as an existential threat. But because they claim, at least theoretically, that they want to help, they're not doing that and they're instead often-actively paving the way for fascism to get more of a foothold. The right wing is the biggest threat, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize other Americans for ineffective and often dangerous strategy, even and especially when they want to claim to be all on the same side as me.

[exoid-the-locomotive-monarch]

Thanks for you page for more Palestine news because goddamn I need to blow off some opinions on the situation.

So wild to me the idea that Jews “repatriating” to the Canaanite lands NEEDED a Jewish ethnostate, or for the Liberal Zionist, a Volkstaat where you can technically vote and live in the country as in independent citizen, but only to the government assigned zones of living where the neighborhoods coincidentally compromise entirely of Arabs, you can leave these zones if you need, we just need your ID to check if you’re Hamas. It’s not segregation because the water fountains aren’t labeled “Arab only” and “Jew only” that’s too obvious.

Like so much of the conversation for Israel is an apocalyptic narrative of “if Hamas wins it’ll be a genocide eligible to be called the second shoah”

BITCH IF WE WANNA CRITICIZE HAMAS WE GOTTA TALK ABOUT WHERE THEY CAME FROM but Zionists only wanna talk about the hostile collapse of Fatah in 2007 to propagate the idea that Palestinians have become too radical to live in their own homeland. If you want a peaceful revolutionary movement, you would have to react to dissent nonviolently.

Unfortunately, the enforcement of the state of Israel started with violence, and even existed under the British Palestinian mandate.

Speaking of which that time in history is usually bright up by Zionists to point out Palestinians that collaborated with the Nazis to prove some way that the Palestinian ethnicity is an epigenetically anti-semitic people who need to be constantly opposed by “the west” to save the Jews from the fascist Arab and… the European ild fashioned racist.

Cause fuck returning the displaced Jews of East Europe and France and the lowlands to rebuilt houses and reconstructed neighborhoods. Dump them in the desert as described in the good book, can’t argue with God, who’s always right and can’t do anything wrong and if you question it you’re misguided at best and hellbound at worst.

Yeah man return an ethnicity displaced for thousands of years to their ancestral homeland I’m sure the people already living there would be okay with influx of a population the size of a small nation’s capital every year, even better when you literally move into their preexisting houses instead of moving in as a neighbor.

It is an international shame the UN and it’s leaders of Britain, the USA, France, and the USSR support this.

Yeah man we should deport the Spanish back to Italy (because they’re actually Roman) and import half the population to Iberia to reclaim the true ancestral population of Al-Andalus.

“But didn’t you point out an example of Arab Colonialism”

First off Moors are not Arab, second if you’re against Arab Colonialism I’d expect you to be against Israel which literally started as a project by the British to fulfill biblical prophecy.

So, all in all. The Jews can live in the Levant, no one ethnicity “owns” land, and no God will say otherwise. So what will happen if Israel goes? Where will the Jews go?

Nowhere, they will stop being Israelis, they instead would be “Jewish Palestinians” or “Hebrew Palestinians” and Palestine does not necessarily have to be run by Hamas. Hamas isn’t the only political movement for Palestinian independence. Even then hot take: most Palestinians who join Hamas just join the movement because it’s the biggest most effective movement of the current age against Israeli force. Certainly it has its anti-semites, that mist be addressed and condemned, but for the most part the movement has evolved to a revolutionary movement with goals of national independence than ISIS 2 (the wikipedia article on Hamas cites ISIS as an enemy of Hamas, with 2 sources cited)

I forgot to mention that Israel has been accused of founding Hamas to intensify conflict between secular and islamist Palestinian liberation forces.

Also to mention was Hamas was unpopular until after the first Intifada. It was a reaction to Israeli violence.

I certainly want people to criticize Hamas, mainly its use of suicide bombing from the 90s, but the issue is framing Hamas as an action and not a reaction, as I said before, to prevent violent revolution you must approach dissent without violence.

A lot has changed since the founder of Hamas (Ahmed Yassin) died. Mainly the situation in Palestine got worse. I want criticism of revolutionary movement to come after the revolution, as no criticism of a revolutionary movement can exist without some appeal to the status quo, and as it exists the status quo now is irreconcilable. I’m afraid the disarming of a terrorist group is not going to work with the elimination of the group by violence, but the required disarmament of the state committing atrocities on a national scale.

I am an American, we didn’t stop the Taliban by bombing Afghanistan, we didn’t stop Al-Qaeda by bombing Iraq in 2003. We didn’t stop ISIS by bombing Syria in 2016, (it was the Syrian army and Kurdish revolutionary forces that did the elbow grease)

Unironically, you want to end Hamas? You need to end Israel first. I’m not kidding.

[lettucedloophole]

What do you think about marxist feminism

honestly, one of the few types of feminism i regard as real feminism. that being said, it's secondary to radical feminism, imo. they have valuable insights to the economic condition of women and how capitalism bolsters patriarchy (particularly in terms of prostitution, the family, and women's labour), but the commitment to economics and the Marxist State™ above women as a class has its repercussions, both theoretically and practically.

for example, in theory-- kollontai, often touted as Ms Marxist Feminism, said some pretty misogynistic shit. i don't recall how marxfems addressed it, but it's as follows, from The Labour of Women in the Evolution of the Economy;

this was in the era when the ussr still had abortion legalized, but of course, they banned it ten years later... and with a mindset like this, it's easy to see why. i don't believe in a feminism which sacrifices women for the greater good. i'm almost entirely anti-natalist (in the radical feminist sense, not the weird doomer philosophical sense) & thus am very much in favour of less pregnancy & motherhood for women. LESS patriarchal obligations and confinement to domestic labour, please.

i did have a marxist bro on twitter respond to this by saying "well she's not FORCING women," to which i responded with the definition of obligation on google dot com and got blocked. so, i have little faith that marxists can handle these discussions.

honestly, sometimes there's an outright refusal to criticize the ussr in any meaningful capacity-- the people who criticize it are usually soft faux-mlm libs hating on "tankies," while those who deny all criticism will unironically stride up to you like "well we need women to be bred for soldiers in our war on imperialism" so colonization of women becomes acceptable for men's Higher Goals. i think if a world cannot exist without the oppression of women it should die, and that goes for the marxist movement as well.

in the practical portion of this is how marxism has failed women, not just in the ussr banning abortion, but also calling things like amber heard's trial "bourgeois theatre," and the CONSISTENT PROBLEM marxist orgs have with SEXUAL HARASSMENT in their leader or membership and their FAILURE TO HOLD THOSE MEN ACCOUNTABLE. the marxist revolution will not happen without women, and as it is right now, i don't think marxism offers enough to women.

radical feminism was literally in response to the failures of marxism on the woman question. a politic which is unapologetically, unequivocally, for women. many radfems were marxists themselves, and consistently the marxists i see with the best feminist politics are those informed (and in favour of some aspect) of radical feminism, or just personally-politically dedicated to women.

now, for my disclaimers-- this is a realitively uninformed perspective. i'm not a marxist but being informed on marxism is a necessity for a coherent anticapitalist movement, whether it's marxist or anarchist in nature. marxist feminism predated radical feminism which would explain some of these more outdated ideas of motherhood as a social obligation posited as feminism. i've heard kollontai has very good work, i just have not read it lol. and most importantly, i know all marxists are not stupid. if you all were stupid, i wouldn't give any credit to marxist feminism. i just focused on my greivances as those are what i think about marxist feminism... the radfem-marxfem rivalry continues. but at least it's real feminism, most of the time.