Been seeing a lot of people coming in here handwringing about 'red fash' and 'muh authoritarianism.'
Figuring that this will be a common occurrence for a while, so wanted to make a collective thread here. The purpose of this is to just have one spot as so we don't fill up the comm with a ton of posts about it.
Post away, comrades!
I get what you're saying. I think what I mean is that there is a difference between active genocide, and famine. It was a failure. The same way that the famine under Mao was a failure, but they weren't genocides.
To actively seek the death of a population, is different to making a costly mistake. So what I mean when I'm talking about this, is that I want a source to bring nuance to the topic. Liberals just think "Mao killed 50 billion people, Tiananmen was a massacre, and The Holodomor was an active genocide" it makes it so that they don't see the nuance in the conversation. Has the USSR made mistakes, and done things I heavily disagree with? Yes. Does this mean that I think the illegal dissolution of the union was acceptable? No.
I'll critique the USSR, China, AES countries all day with fellow socialists, but when talking to liberals, I need to explain to them that they have some misconceptions first, and then we can talk about that after.
Liberals lack nuanced perspectives about a lot of things. They believe in good and evil. "We are good guys, they are bad guys". I can't discuss the failures of the USSR with people who just believe that the USSR was some evil empire. They have to understand the good they did too, and the myths they believe have to be dispelled.
Sorry for making that so long, don't take that to reflect that I have a problem with what you said, just want to make sure my perspective doesn't get misunderstood.
Nope I'm 100% with you comrade, I don't really have anything to add to what you said :fidel-salute-big:
this isnt really targeted at you in particular but one thing ive noticed with how MLs type is that the word "illegal" gets thrown around a lot, like the illegal dissolution of the ussr here or the illegal invasion of iraq or the illegal bombing of vietnam and its not really a way of framing it that i personally find particularly convincing. i think im just not a fan of the premise here thats making a normative claim based off legality.
I understand what you mean, and maybe I should not refer to it as such, but to explain why I specifically refer to the dissolution of the USSR as illegal, is due to the fact that 77.85% of the population of the Soviet Union voted to not dissolve it (Which I'm sure is not news here, just wanted to source just in case, I'm new here and still traumatized by Reddit lol). So while illegal might be the wrong word, I'm just referring to it also being against the will of the people. But this might be a bad way to frame it, I totally see what you mean, and I'll definitely think about what you said here, it does make sense to me.
sure, i understand the context too, don't worry. i certainly agree with what you're saying, and im not trying to be hostile, its just a tiny thing that i dont think should be standard is all.
Didn't take it as hostile at all, don't worry! :fidel-salute-big: Just wanted to explain myself. I mean it when I say that I appreciate your perspective.
:sankara-salute: O7, seeing newcomers to this site is always nice