Tankies are so close to the far right when they defend the dictatorship of the totalitarian USSR.
Far right stuff like the defeat of Nazism in Europe which saved all 100+ million peoples between Berlin and the Urals from extermination.
Far right stuff like universal healthcare and education to the highest level for free, leading to an increase from 28 years of life expectancy in pre-revolutionary times to almost 70 years of age by 1960s.
Far right stuff like universal right to housing and to work, bringing the complete abolition of homelessness and unemployment.
Far right stuff like bringing about the lowest income inequality that the region has seen in its history by an incredible margin
Far right stuff like supporting anti-imperialist liberation movements all over the globe as early as 1936 (civil war in Spain, my homeland, was only given weapons by the Soviets to fight the fascists) and throughout its entire existence (Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, anti-colonial movements all over Africa, Latin America and Asia)
Far right stuff like having the highest female representation in institutions at the time and being the first country to give voting rights to women
Far right stuff like the policy of preservation of local cultures and languages (for comparison, look up the number of Occitan speakers in France between years 1900 and 2000)
Far right stuff like having a self-sustained economy that didn’t rely on the exploitation of billions in the global south and which had favorable trade terms with other countries in the COMECON and subsidy of third countries such as Cuba through e.g. the “programa petróleo por azúcar”
But yeah, the evil stalinists had prisons during WW2, a war that killed 25 million Soviet citizens!! What a bunch of evil right wing totalitarians!!!
More like collaborated with the Nazis and then defended themselves when Germany invaded. But to be more blunt, tons of Right Wing people, nations, and leaders contributed to the defeat of Nazism. Political ideology played little role for most compared to National affiliation. Numerous right wing partisan groups fought the Nazis AND leftists.
Far right stuff like universal right to housing and to work
Serfs always had a right to housing and work and no one would argue that serfdom is Left Wing.
Far right stuff like supporting anti-imperialist liberation movements
Far right stuff like being an Empire
But lets dispense with the tit for tat. The Bolsheviks were far right because they believe that power should rest in the hands of the political elite and not the people. Workers were denied self-determination, denied political power, denied control over the means of production, and faced violence for not complying with the Ruling Class; all hallmarks of the Far Right.
This is a widely repeated lie in reddit and Lemmy. I’m gonna please ask you to actually read my comment and to be open to the historical evidence I bring (using Wikipedia as a source, hopefully not suspect of being tankie-biased), because I believe there is a great mistake in the way contemporary western nations interpret history of WW2 and the interwar period. Thank you for actually making the effort, I know it’s a long comment, but please engage with the points I’m making:
The only country who offered to start a collective offensive against the Nazis and to uphold the defense agreement with Czechoslovakia as an alternative to the Munich Betrayal was the USSR. From that Wikipedia article: “The Soviet Union announced its willingness to come to Czechoslovakia’s assistance, provided the Red Army would be able to cross Polish and Romanian territory; both countries refused.” Poland could have literally been saved from Nazi invasion if France and itself had agreed to start a war together against Nazi Germany, but they didn’t want to. By the logic of “invading Poland” being akin to Nazi collaboration, Poland was as imperialist as the Nazis.
As a Spaniard leftist it’s so infuriating when the Soviet Union, the ONLY country in 1936 which actively fought fascism in Europe by sending weapons, tanks and aviation to my homeland in the other side of the continent in the Spanish civil war against fascism, is accused of appeasing the fascists. The Soviets weren’t dumb, they knew the danger and threat of Nazism and worked for the entire decade of the 1930s under the Litvinov Doctrine of Collective Security to enter mutual defense agreements with England, France and Poland, which all refused because they were convinced that the Nazis would honor their own stated purpose of invading the communists in the East. The Soviets went as far as to offer ONE MILLION troops to France (Archive link against paywall) together with tanks, artillery and aviation in 1939 in exchange for a mutual defense agreement, which the French didn’t agree to because of the stated reason. Just from THIS evidence, the Soviets were by far the most antifascist country in Europe throughout the 1930s, you literally won’t find any other country doing any remotely similar efforts to fight Nazism. If you do, please provide evidence.
The invasion of “Poland” is also severely misconstrued. The Soviets didn’t invade what we think of nowadays when we say Poland. They invaded overwhelmingly Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian lands that Poland had previously invaded in 1919. Poland in 1938, a year before the invasion:
“Polish” territories invaded by the USSR in 1939:
The Soviets invaded famously Polish cities such as Lviv (sixth most populous city in modern Ukraine), Pinsk (important city in western Belarus) and Vilnius (capital of freaking modern Lithuania). They only invaded a small chunk of what you’d consider Poland nowadays, and the rest of lands were actually liberated from Polish occupation and returned to the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian socialist republics. Hopefully you understand the importance of giving Ukrainians back their lands and sovereignty?
Additionally, the Soviets didn’t invade Poland together with the Nazis, they invaded a bit more than two weeks after the Nazi invasion, at a time when the Polish government had already exiled itself and there was no Polish administration. The meaning of this, is that all lands not occupied by Soviet troops, would have been occupied by Nazis. There was no alternative. Polish troops did not resist Soviet occupation but they did resist Nazi invasion. The Soviet occupation effectively protected millions of Slavic peoples like Poles, Ukrainians and Belarusians from the stated aim of Nazis of genociding the Slavic peoples all the way to the Urals.
All in all, my conclusion is: the Soviets were fully aware of the dangers of Nazism and fought against it earlier than anyone (Spanish civil war), spent the entire 30s pushing for an anti-Nazi mutual defence agreement which was refused by France, England and Poland, tried to honour the existing mutual defense agreement with Czechoslovakia which France rejected and Poland didn’t allow (Romania neither but they were fascists so that’s a given), and offered to send a million troops to France’s border with Germany to destroy Nazism but weren’t allowed to do so. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a tool of postponing the war in a period in which the USSR, a very young country with only 10 years of industrialization behind it since the first 5-year plan in 1929, was growing at a 10% GDP per year rate and needed every moment it could get. I can and do criticise decisions such as the invasion of Finland, but ultimately even the western leaders at the time seem to generally agree with my interpretation:
“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)
“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.
"One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course” Neville Chamberlain House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact’s signing)
Describing ethnicity based deportations and gulags as “”““prisons””“” is one hell of a stretch.
This also neglects the amount of emancipatory legislation that Stalin repealed during his reign. Like recriminalizing homosexuality, abolishing the local language initiatives and instead pushing for his russification of the country (compare the ethnic make up of the Soviet leadership in 1921 and 1939)
The Soviet Union had its successes and it had its abject failures. Acknowledging them doesnt make you a librul or a revisionist.
Describing ethnicity based deportations and gulags as “”““prisons””“” is one hell of a stretch
Ethnicity based deportations were in fact not prisons, and they were a deplorable and unjustified episode that I wholeheartedly condemn and must be never repeated again. The GULAG system was literally prisons though, it’s just the acronym of the prison system at the time.
As for the rest of your comment, yes, bad policy and mistakes were made during the hardest times of history. We could have a calm conversation and discussion about those, and honestly, I haven’t seen more honest criticism of failures of policy than that in Marxist-Leninist discussion, because people actually bother getting informed and reading about the topic instead of reproducing CIA propaganda. “Goolag hundred million deaths” is not good analysis.
The Soviet Union had its successes and it had its abject failures
Yes, and you’d be surprised how much debate there is about the problems of the USSR in actual Marxist-Leninist circles. The fact of the matter is that it still was the most emancipating socialist experiment up to its day, the first state in the world to achieve collectivization of lands, it empowered hundreds of millions of people to fight against western imperialism, and achieved all of this while living in a world dominated by western imperialism and under constant threat and the most refined and well-funded strategies to topple it.
No, let’s focus on the totally evil government of a country that has never invaded anyone and keep pushing them as the most evil thing on the planet with the Totally True™ Stories of intergenerational prisons, of government-sanctioned haircuts, and of big big totalitarianism and prison system (nevermind the US being the highest prison population country). Their government system may be weird and have some cult of personality, but nothing to do with the entire destruction of the country by the US and its later isolation from the global stage, right?
A country getting bombed into Rubble doesn’t justify it becoming a hereditary monarchy no matter how much whataboutism you toss around. Nor do the sins of other countries absolve the sins of the Kim family towards their own country.
A country getting bombed into Rubble doesn’t justify
It’s not about justification, it’s about the way history works. Germany, subjected to unaffordable reparations after WW1, turned to Nazism because such conditions breed right wing extremism. It was afterwards collectively decided not to repeat that mistake and Germany was allowed to flourish again. This is a well understood political phenomenon, and the damages to the DPRK done by the American government and military and posterior efforts in sanction had exactly the desired effect.
I agree with you on a great many things. Learning about Laos via meeting some locals in Riviera Beach (not the nice one you’re thinking of) and some wiki hole after seeing the Anthony Bourdain episode. I’m not going to argue that the US is some bastion of moral righteousness. But just any dictatorship is << than whatever the fuck we got going on. Ffs Kim just murdered his own uncle in broad daylight not a fucking year ago.
There are levels of fucked uppedness, and North Korea’s current regime is just south of the Khmer rouge.
Edit: love that there is someone supportive of murdering people with glasses in this! Go on, tell how reeducation through labor is a good thing!
But just any dictatorship is << than whatever the fuck we got going on
By what metric? The USA is complicit in the genocide of >500k Palestinians over the past few years, what has North Korea done similar to that in the past 30?
Public execution for big one. Again homie, I’m not disagreeing with you that the US is fucked and has an outsized prison population(I did read your whole post and links). But North Korea is really fucked up. And it’s not all propaganda. But a closed society like that can easily manipulate numbers like the US is currently trying to do.
Why do you think trump likes Kim so much? They are the same, and they are not good people.
Edit: I love that I upset a few of you tankies. Keep the hate coming!
Ok, how many public executions have taken place in North Korea for the past 30 years? Give me metrics, please. Please, provide any qunagitative quantitative measures for the things you’re talking about. I’m a Spaniard and I could tell you about my democratic government literally dissolving the corpses of tortured and murdered political activists in chemicals so that there would be no evidence.
This argument started with me mentioning Kim murdering his uncle. So at least one. Which is, again, >>>than the US(who also suck btw). I’m really not trying to be combative with you homie. I don’t want this exchange to be adversarial, because I’ve seen your name around and again, I agree with you on a ton of shit. But dictatorships ain’t the hill to die on.
I don’t want the exchange to be adversarial either, but I asked you for metrics, not for “one person was murdered in North Korea”. You are the one making the claim “North Korea is significantly worse than the USA” while the USA is supporting genocide and has already disappeared 75k civilians since the start of the Trump mandate through ICE.
Now give me the metrics that make North Korea that much worse.
I said “extremely oppressive” which is objectively factual. They have a ‘supreme leader’ who legally controls the police, the military, the executive branch of govt and most facets of peoples lives. The ruling party is legally allowed to repress other parties, and so on… And so forth…
“No, you see it’s very simple: tankies are bad because the west can’t be evil. I put my X on a paper therefore I live in a DemocracyTM and I can exploit and coup other countries because we need to teach these savages some culture.”
You gotta love all these brave downvoters with zero arguments.
Stalin is a… polarizing figure for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which being his comic inability to extend revolutionary Marxism into Europe when it was at its most popular and most necessary.
Like, the liberals kicking and screaming about his successors - largely a bunch of socialist softies who were happy with detente and primarily interested in economic growth - are absolutely reactionary shits more invested in reinventing the 1950s through third world extraction than any kind of global standard for civil rights or ecological preservation. But Stalin’s paranoia, his intractability, and the toxic consequences of the cult of personality that kept him in office long past his expiration date did horrible things to 1930s Soviet Era domestic policy.
There’s a reason numbskull Russian fascists venerate Stalin far more than Lenin or Khrushchev. Its the same reason Americans put Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill.
Tankies are so close to the far right when they defend the dictatorship of the totalitarian USSR.
Far right stuff like the defeat of Nazism in Europe which saved all 100+ million peoples between Berlin and the Urals from extermination.
Far right stuff like universal healthcare and education to the highest level for free, leading to an increase from 28 years of life expectancy in pre-revolutionary times to almost 70 years of age by 1960s.
Far right stuff like universal right to housing and to work, bringing the complete abolition of homelessness and unemployment.
Far right stuff like bringing about the lowest income inequality that the region has seen in its history by an incredible margin
Far right stuff like supporting anti-imperialist liberation movements all over the globe as early as 1936 (civil war in Spain, my homeland, was only given weapons by the Soviets to fight the fascists) and throughout its entire existence (Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, anti-colonial movements all over Africa, Latin America and Asia)
Far right stuff like having the highest female representation in institutions at the time and being the first country to give voting rights to women
Far right stuff like the policy of preservation of local cultures and languages (for comparison, look up the number of Occitan speakers in France between years 1900 and 2000)
Far right stuff like having a self-sustained economy that didn’t rely on the exploitation of billions in the global south and which had favorable trade terms with other countries in the COMECON and subsidy of third countries such as Cuba through e.g. the “programa petróleo por azúcar”
But yeah, the evil stalinists had prisons during WW2, a war that killed 25 million Soviet citizens!! What a bunch of evil right wing totalitarians!!!
More like collaborated with the Nazis and then defended themselves when Germany invaded. But to be more blunt, tons of Right Wing people, nations, and leaders contributed to the defeat of Nazism. Political ideology played little role for most compared to National affiliation. Numerous right wing partisan groups fought the Nazis AND leftists.
Serfs always had a right to housing and work and no one would argue that serfdom is Left Wing.
Far right stuff like being an Empire
But lets dispense with the tit for tat. The Bolsheviks were far right because they believe that power should rest in the hands of the political elite and not the people. Workers were denied self-determination, denied political power, denied control over the means of production, and faced violence for not complying with the Ruling Class; all hallmarks of the Far Right.
This is a widely repeated lie in reddit and Lemmy. I’m gonna please ask you to actually read my comment and to be open to the historical evidence I bring (using Wikipedia as a source, hopefully not suspect of being tankie-biased), because I believe there is a great mistake in the way contemporary western nations interpret history of WW2 and the interwar period. Thank you for actually making the effort, I know it’s a long comment, but please engage with the points I’m making:
The only country who offered to start a collective offensive against the Nazis and to uphold the defense agreement with Czechoslovakia as an alternative to the Munich Betrayal was the USSR. From that Wikipedia article: “The Soviet Union announced its willingness to come to Czechoslovakia’s assistance, provided the Red Army would be able to cross Polish and Romanian territory; both countries refused.” Poland could have literally been saved from Nazi invasion if France and itself had agreed to start a war together against Nazi Germany, but they didn’t want to. By the logic of “invading Poland” being akin to Nazi collaboration, Poland was as imperialist as the Nazis.
As a Spaniard leftist it’s so infuriating when the Soviet Union, the ONLY country in 1936 which actively fought fascism in Europe by sending weapons, tanks and aviation to my homeland in the other side of the continent in the Spanish civil war against fascism, is accused of appeasing the fascists. The Soviets weren’t dumb, they knew the danger and threat of Nazism and worked for the entire decade of the 1930s under the Litvinov Doctrine of Collective Security to enter mutual defense agreements with England, France and Poland, which all refused because they were convinced that the Nazis would honor their own stated purpose of invading the communists in the East. The Soviets went as far as to offer ONE MILLION troops to France (Archive link against paywall) together with tanks, artillery and aviation in 1939 in exchange for a mutual defense agreement, which the French didn’t agree to because of the stated reason. Just from THIS evidence, the Soviets were by far the most antifascist country in Europe throughout the 1930s, you literally won’t find any other country doing any remotely similar efforts to fight Nazism. If you do, please provide evidence.
The invasion of “Poland” is also severely misconstrued. The Soviets didn’t invade what we think of nowadays when we say Poland. They invaded overwhelmingly Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian lands that Poland had previously invaded in 1919. Poland in 1938, a year before the invasion:
“Polish” territories invaded by the USSR in 1939:
The Soviets invaded famously Polish cities such as Lviv (sixth most populous city in modern Ukraine), Pinsk (important city in western Belarus) and Vilnius (capital of freaking modern Lithuania). They only invaded a small chunk of what you’d consider Poland nowadays, and the rest of lands were actually liberated from Polish occupation and returned to the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian socialist republics. Hopefully you understand the importance of giving Ukrainians back their lands and sovereignty?
Additionally, the Soviets didn’t invade Poland together with the Nazis, they invaded a bit more than two weeks after the Nazi invasion, at a time when the Polish government had already exiled itself and there was no Polish administration. The meaning of this, is that all lands not occupied by Soviet troops, would have been occupied by Nazis. There was no alternative. Polish troops did not resist Soviet occupation but they did resist Nazi invasion. The Soviet occupation effectively protected millions of Slavic peoples like Poles, Ukrainians and Belarusians from the stated aim of Nazis of genociding the Slavic peoples all the way to the Urals.
All in all, my conclusion is: the Soviets were fully aware of the dangers of Nazism and fought against it earlier than anyone (Spanish civil war), spent the entire 30s pushing for an anti-Nazi mutual defence agreement which was refused by France, England and Poland, tried to honour the existing mutual defense agreement with Czechoslovakia which France rejected and Poland didn’t allow (Romania neither but they were fascists so that’s a given), and offered to send a million troops to France’s border with Germany to destroy Nazism but weren’t allowed to do so. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a tool of postponing the war in a period in which the USSR, a very young country with only 10 years of industrialization behind it since the first 5-year plan in 1929, was growing at a 10% GDP per year rate and needed every moment it could get. I can and do criticise decisions such as the invasion of Finland, but ultimately even the western leaders at the time seem to generally agree with my interpretation:
“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)
“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.
"One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course” Neville Chamberlain House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact’s signing)
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this
This is the reason I come to lemmy. Great explanation damn.
Glad to help, buddy
Describing ethnicity based deportations and gulags as “”““prisons””“” is one hell of a stretch.
This also neglects the amount of emancipatory legislation that Stalin repealed during his reign. Like recriminalizing homosexuality, abolishing the local language initiatives and instead pushing for his russification of the country (compare the ethnic make up of the Soviet leadership in 1921 and 1939)
The Soviet Union had its successes and it had its abject failures. Acknowledging them doesnt make you a librul or a revisionist.
Ethnicity based deportations were in fact not prisons, and they were a deplorable and unjustified episode that I wholeheartedly condemn and must be never repeated again. The GULAG system was literally prisons though, it’s just the acronym of the prison system at the time.
As for the rest of your comment, yes, bad policy and mistakes were made during the hardest times of history. We could have a calm conversation and discussion about those, and honestly, I haven’t seen more honest criticism of failures of policy than that in Marxist-Leninist discussion, because people actually bother getting informed and reading about the topic instead of reproducing CIA propaganda. “Goolag hundred million deaths” is not good analysis.
Yes, and you’d be surprised how much debate there is about the problems of the USSR in actual Marxist-Leninist circles. The fact of the matter is that it still was the most emancipating socialist experiment up to its day, the first state in the world to achieve collectivization of lands, it empowered hundreds of millions of people to fight against western imperialism, and achieved all of this while living in a world dominated by western imperialism and under constant threat and the most refined and well-funded strategies to topple it.
I see them unironically supporting North Korea.
You’re totally right, they should join into the international bashing of the country that the USA bombed until 85% of THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF BUILDINGS IN THE COUNTRY were leveled, dropping more explosives than were used in the ENTIRE PACIFIC THEATER OF WW2. North Korea being completely leveled and bombed into the stone age and then economically sanctioned into oblivion (remember economic sanctions from USA and EU murder 560.000 people yearly since 1970) surely doesn’t affect them either does it?
No, let’s focus on the totally evil government of a country that has never invaded anyone and keep pushing them as the most evil thing on the planet with the Totally True™ Stories of intergenerational prisons, of government-sanctioned haircuts, and of big big totalitarianism and prison system (nevermind the US being the highest prison population country). Their government system may be weird and have some cult of personality, but nothing to do with the entire destruction of the country by the US and its later isolation from the global stage, right?
A country getting bombed into Rubble doesn’t justify it becoming a hereditary monarchy no matter how much whataboutism you toss around. Nor do the sins of other countries absolve the sins of the Kim family towards their own country.
You’re blaming the victim for the fact they have a dysfunctional state? Really?
It’s not about justification, it’s about the way history works. Germany, subjected to unaffordable reparations after WW1, turned to Nazism because such conditions breed right wing extremism. It was afterwards collectively decided not to repeat that mistake and Germany was allowed to flourish again. This is a well understood political phenomenon, and the damages to the DPRK done by the American government and military and posterior efforts in sanction had exactly the desired effect.
I agree with you on a great many things. Learning about Laos via meeting some locals in Riviera Beach (not the nice one you’re thinking of) and some wiki hole after seeing the Anthony Bourdain episode. I’m not going to argue that the US is some bastion of moral righteousness. But just any dictatorship is << than whatever the fuck we got going on. Ffs Kim just murdered his own uncle in broad daylight not a fucking year ago.
There are levels of fucked uppedness, and North Korea’s current regime is just south of the Khmer rouge.
Edit: love that there is someone supportive of murdering people with glasses in this! Go on, tell how reeducation through labor is a good thing!
By what metric? The USA is complicit in the genocide of >500k Palestinians over the past few years, what has North Korea done similar to that in the past 30?
Public execution for big one. Again homie, I’m not disagreeing with you that the US is fucked and has an outsized prison population(I did read your whole post and links). But North Korea is really fucked up. And it’s not all propaganda. But a closed society like that can easily manipulate numbers like the US is currently trying to do.
Why do you think trump likes Kim so much? They are the same, and they are not good people.
Edit: I love that I upset a few of you tankies. Keep the hate coming!
Ok, how many public executions have taken place in North Korea for the past 30 years? Give me metrics, please. Please, provide any qunagitative quantitative measures for the things you’re talking about. I’m a Spaniard and I could tell you about my democratic government literally dissolving the corpses of tortured and murdered political activists in chemicals so that there would be no evidence.
This argument started with me mentioning Kim murdering his uncle. So at least one. Which is, again, >>>than the US(who also suck btw). I’m really not trying to be combative with you homie. I don’t want this exchange to be adversarial, because I’ve seen your name around and again, I agree with you on a ton of shit. But dictatorships ain’t the hill to die on.
Ok. Jeffrey Epstein, got one from the USA.
I don’t want the exchange to be adversarial either, but I asked you for metrics, not for “one person was murdered in North Korea”. You are the one making the claim “North Korea is significantly worse than the USA” while the USA is supporting genocide and has already disappeared 75k civilians since the start of the Trump mandate through ICE.
Now give me the metrics that make North Korea that much worse.
Yeah, like that ^
They use huge whataboutisms to excuse the extremely oppressive regime running the country currently, as though any criticism is unreasonable.
What’s the prison population in North Korea? Give me data on what metrics you’re using
Who said anything about ‘prison population?’
I said “extremely oppressive” which is objectively factual. They have a ‘supreme leader’ who legally controls the police, the military, the executive branch of govt and most facets of peoples lives. The ruling party is legally allowed to repress other parties, and so on… And so forth…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_North_Korea
Inb4 “Wikipedia is a CIA psyop”
They are clearly arguing in bad faith, I refuse to believe someone is this disconnected with reality. Good job on explaining stuff tho comrade.
“No, you see it’s very simple: tankies are bad because the west can’t be evil. I put my X on a paper therefore I live in a DemocracyTM and I can exploit and coup other countries because we need to teach these savages some culture.”
You gotta love all these brave downvoters with zero arguments.
Tankies literally can’t fathom being able to recognize two things as bad at the same time. Imperialism is bad whether or not it’s painted red.
I think you wrote Liberal wrong.
And I think you forgot how much libs completely minced our balls to dust with that blue bitch last year.
What is the point in recognising a bad thing if you then call it the “LeSs eVil” and support it anyway?
You’re right, better let Ukraine get annexed.
The thought-terminating straw man that online Western “leftists” can’t stop embarrassing themselves with.
Stalin is a… polarizing figure for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which being his comic inability to extend revolutionary Marxism into Europe when it was at its most popular and most necessary.
Like, the liberals kicking and screaming about his successors - largely a bunch of socialist softies who were happy with detente and primarily interested in economic growth - are absolutely reactionary shits more invested in reinventing the 1950s through third world extraction than any kind of global standard for civil rights or ecological preservation. But Stalin’s paranoia, his intractability, and the toxic consequences of the cult of personality that kept him in office long past his expiration date did horrible things to 1930s Soviet Era domestic policy.
There’s a reason numbskull Russian fascists venerate Stalin far more than Lenin or Khrushchev. Its the same reason Americans put Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill.
Removed by mod
Lemme guess, malding Pole/Baltic?