ExotiqueMatter

Mfs who never visited easten bloc and idealise life during ussr need to visit romania , moldova , kyrgystan etc

You say life under socialism was good yet in those same countries right now after the collapse of socialism and 30+ years of capitalism life is not good, curious...

Literally pretty much everything Lenin wrote about Trotsky was him calling Trotsky an idiot who has no clue what he's talking about half the time and was generally a nuisance to their party work and organizing. In what world was Lenin better friend, or friend at all, with Trotsky than Stalin?

The imperials took inspiration from their family tree to make their system I see.

I love that the same and we use today for communist memes were passed down to us by soviet comrades.

👈 Like this

4 peoples recount to the press the time they were stranded on a small uninhabited island. 3 of them talk about how hard the 4th made it for them because he would eat almost everything that they fished, hunted and harvested by himself and leave only leftovers for the 3 and didn't fish, hunt or harvest anything himself.

An economist cut them off and says that, actually, the 4th did them a favor because he generated almost all the demand for fish, meat and fruits and without him they wouldn't have had a job on the island.

Who said that it was intentionally made famine with the goal of killing people? And where?

That's the "mainstream" narrative so I assumed it was what you were arguing, sorry if it wasn't.

Are you hung on the original commenter calling it “mass murder” and your point is that it wasn’t premeditated?

Essentially. Yes.

Would the governing body of PRC in 1962 attributing the famine to government errors convince you otherwise? Would the Chinese government 20 years later confirming the same convince you?

I'm not sure where you're going with this. That the famine was accidental and (in part) caused by bad policies and mismanagement is what I'm saying happened. You're agreeing with me there.

If not, can you imagine a fact that would convince you? What is it?

If you think the famine was accidental but the government's bad policies caused it/made it worse, I already agree.

If you think that the famine was intentional and the government was trying to kill peoples by starvation, I would need proof that they at least discussed it internally in order to be convinced. Leaked internal documents, testimony from peoples who were there (and can prove that they were), recording of meetings between party officials, that kind of things.

I’m sorry, but why would that matter? We tend to judge people by their actions, not their intent, when it comes to mass deaths.

Right?

Right?

Maybe it's my autism but dismissing a relevant question by implying that the person who asked it is immoral/unempathetic for even asking it seems pretty defensive to me, and is a non-argument regardless.

Literally what the first commenter gave - there was a widespread famine in China, it’s caused by Mao agricultural policies.

Now that one is on me, I could have worded that better. By cause-effect relationship in this context I meant the cause who's effect was that the government chose to take whatever course of action you believe is responsible for the famine. Peoples take decisions for reasons, bad reasons sometimes, yes, but reasons nonetheless.

It's not about agreeing with the reasons, it's about coherency. That an entire government, a group formed of thousands of peoples, would act all in concert with no motive, especially for a project on such a large scale and which would take so many resources, is nonsense. If you can't present either proof that they really took the conscious decision to manufacture a famine or a motive to explain why they would want to do that, the claim that the famine was intentional is extremely dubious at best.

Also, speaking of a government's actions as if only the one person at the top was to blame is something peoples trying to speak about politics and history seriously should avoid.

What are you contesting here? There was no famine? Famine is the narrative? Or that it wasn’t caused by policies but by… What? Weather? Weather was good.

There was a famine. But it was not man made with the purpose of killing a large portion of the population, again, as the other commenter pointed out, why would they do such a thing? And why did they stop doing it? It makes no sense.

The famine was the produce of a great number of different factors, inefficient and backward agricultural methods, bad weather, compound effects of WW2 + the Chinese civil war, mismanagement, trade embargoes, etc... But others could explain it better than I can.

An other point we disagree on is the number of deaths from the famine. Numerous western academics intentionally inflate the death tolls of countries ruled by communist parties, most infamously "the black book of communism" and the "victims of communism foundation" who literally count Nazi invaders killed by the red army and peoples who could potentially have been born but weren't as victims of communism.

I don’t understand your point, please clarify it, in a way that isn’t just calling your interlocutors stupid or defensive.

I called you defensive but I did not call you stupid, nor did I imply it.

It matter for the same reason a tribunal need to know the motive of a crime to give it appropriate punishment. It's not about the morality of the action, it's about a logically sound and coherent picture of the event.

Peoples doing something bad for terribly bad reasons is coherent, peoples doing something bad for no reason at all isn't. The fact that you don't have any explanation as to why an entire government composed of thousand of peoples would do such a thing -like it or not- is a very big hole in your narrative, and rise some serious questions about it's consistency and therefore about it's likelihood (because an incoherent statement can never be true no matter what).

Insisting that the event happened the way you say it did without providing any rational or cause-effect relationship and becoming defensive when explicitly asked to provide one puts both your narrative and your argumentation in it's favor in the same category as those of conspiracy theorists who insists that "they" lie to us and immediately gets mad when asked to explain why "they" would.

If the US stopped sending weapons Israel would have to stop the genocide regardless of whether they want to or not. Already even with being pumped full of pentagon weapons and fundings all they can do is bombing unarmed civilians from far away because every time they try to actually fight Hamas or Hezbollah they get fucking shredded and have to retreat within a few months and their supposedly impenetrable iron dome gets regularly bullied by Hezbollah and Ansar Allah drones, so without US help they would be doomed to fall unless they sue for peace.

Ha yes, wanting a politician that doesn't have sewer fermented dogshit stances on literally every single important current political issue is "expecting perfection".

Keep scolding everyone who dares have even the mildest criticism of the blue clown show as they continue to slide more and more to the right, that worked out so well for you all this past election.