Fair enough, I mostly agree. I can imagine that China, Vietnam, and Laos are on the list because of, uh, capitalist roading, and the DPRK is nationalist to a reactionary degree and kind of culty, but what criticism would you apply to Cuba? Do they do capitalist roading too? I don't hear much about them in that regard.
GarbageShootAlt2
joined 2 years ago
Is it your stance that every nominally Marxist country is actually Marxist? That there are no revisionist countries even though, for example, the USSR spent most of its existence being revisionist?
I always thought that communism has been proven not to work multiple times throughout history.
The more accurate lesson would be that communist nations have been defeated by capitalist hegemony multiple times throughout history, mainly during the Cold War; the countries didn't just implode of their own accord. Now, it's fair to criticize them for this, if you have an ideology all about material conditions and then you aren't able to survive those conditions, you probably messed up, but I think that's a very different assertion from "communism doesn't work".
You probably want to replace "atheism" with "antitheism" in that context. I would disagree either way, but I think you'd have a point with antitheism.
He falsified his data to show that this worked and in the long run led to the starvation of 30 million people.
The causation here is a simplification of a famine that had many other factors (I don't think Lysenko was particularly important to it, even) and also a wild overestimation of the death toll of the famine
I apologize about the language bit. I rarely get a liberal arguing about this who wouldn't use such a term as "comrade" derisively.
Anyway, I explained the reason I shared it, which is that it is:
showing Stalin getting outvoted on a basic ideological issue by revisionists.
But that's not precisely what you asked for, I just don't have a good source on your real question.
The ICC is not trustworthy, and I certainly trust the objective events that even liberal media report on when they come into conflict with what the ICC says. I don't know what Putin says on this and have not cited him once because that would be absurd. You are denying reality in favor of statements.
Aside from the ICC notoriously being an American running-dog, charges are not convictions. We've already seen Russia cooperate with returning children, we can't say that there's no intention of it.
They were children abandoned in a war zone. Russia needs to do something about keeping them fed, housed, and clothed. If it didn't, then it would still be getting accused of genocide, though in that case with more reason! Furthermore, Russia clearly and demonstrably is cooperating with humanitarian organizations to reunite families, and many have been reunited already. The accusation is alarmist nonsense from the perpetual self-proclaimed ethnic victims to justify their fascist cult to literal perpetrators of the Holocaust.
No worries about the Israel part
I would say that yes, it would certainly involve reliquishing land, that's the reality of the situation. I don't think there's any credence to the "abducted Ukrainian" story. On the off chance you mean POWs, they would surely be returned. If you mean the children who Russia evacuated from the war zones that it controlled, most likely the children with a surviving guardian will be reunited with them as has already happened, and the children who can't be reunited with a guardian (for any number of reasons) will wind up in the local foster system in Donbass. The Ukrainian government loves crying wolf about being the victim of a supposed genocide by Russians, but here as ever there simply isn't adequate reason to believe it's true.
To be clear, I'm not saying Trump would take any action an anglosphere liberal would approve of (though I think his stance on Ukraine is the one thing he supports that is surprisingly reasonable if it's true), I'm just trying to explain as best as I understand it the things Putin would take into consideration. This is of course all in the "pro" column for him, but it's also extremely unreliable (Trump could easily be lying about his position, though I believe he isn't) and doesn't make up for the much worse possibility of Trump dramatically increasing US involvement. As things stand, Russia is surely going to win the war, so it would be poor strategy to rock the boat with the wildcard Trump currently represents with respect to this specific issue.
I'm not saying he's a dove or anything, but he doesn't really give a shit about NATO therefore isn't terribly invested in protecting the Zelensky regime, and he has been consistent about saying the war should be ended so Ukrainians survive, [which, to be clear, I doubt he personally cares about, but it's his platform] and even said this when he was pressed with the insanely unprofessional and ridiculous bait question "Do you want Ukraine to win?" at the debate.
Anyway, it's no guarantee, he's a very unstable and erratic guy, but I think he sees the war as a waste of money and would prefer friendlier relations with Russia.
That's interesting, I didn't know that Lysenkoism bled into China, but your number is still nonsense because
. . . applies even more to China. I'm no expert, but I've read a lot of people complaining about the GLF and its agricultural practices and that just never came up. I'm sure it's a bad way to farm plants, but I think what you're trying to depict is the product of anti-communists making mountains out of molehills wrt Lysenko. Lysenko is an incredibly convenient communist boogeyman who seems to verify every tired stereotype about communists, so saying it was this specific guy having an unfathomable level of influence [and thereby communism expressing itself to the fullest] that directly lead to a trillion people dead is an excellent bedtime story for those anti-communists so they have an easier time sleeping on the mountains of corpses butchered by their liberal states.