Wahington state becomes first US state to recognize as holodomor as genocide.

I don't ever recall the Republican Party blaming Russia for its own shortcomings and political failures. The GOP went through the same thing in 2008 that Democrats are going through now but Republicans were humble and wise enough to admit and correct their own mistakes, hence they were able to regain the confidence of American voters and become the majority party again. When Republicans complain about your country (or more specifically your government and its leaders) it's when our nation's geostrategic, security and economic interests come into conflict with those of Russia. The Democrats, on the other hand, are trying to avoid responsibility for their own shortcomings and failures, so they're scapegoating your country. It's weak and arrogant, and I suspect it's going to blow up in their faces.

 

I personally hate arguments over leftism. There is literally nothing to point at to defend it, yet, it is still being talked about because of yuppie kids, and a racket masquerading as higher education. Not to mention, in the end it was all socialism, true communism was never achieved. And you aren't even allowed to point to socialism, because even though they all self identified as socialists (even the nazis), it triggers a semantic headache with American pseudo intellectuals in denial.

Nothing has killed more than leftism. Unless you bring in the international banking cabal financing it, the blame would then fall under the globalist umbrella - which almost all global horrors can be attributed to throughout the last 150 years.

But arguing "child labor contributions" when it is still going on in the most socialist country left on earth(China) in 2017?
I have to tell you partner, even if you don't self identify, you sympathize too much for my tastes. I'd throw you into the line with the rest.

 

Jews weren't the only people who were killed by the Nazis, either, but we recognize the Holocaust and the Holodomor for a reason, and that's because Hitler and Stalin waged deliberate, targeted campaigns of mass extermination against the Jews and Ukrainians. The same thing goes for the Armenian and Rwandan genocides.

On the other hand, consider how the 20-55 million victims of Mao's Great Leap Forward, many of whom starved to death on account of the Communists' disastrous collectivization programs, are considered the victims of democide not genocide. Again, there is a reason for this distinction, even though the scale of this crime against humanity was greater than both the Holocaust and Holodomor combined.

 

ive seen no evidence that the Ukrainian ethnicity was targeted for genocide.

now, were private farmers targeted for genocide in the USSR? yep.

 

I do not know about Armenia or Rwanda, but nature of famine in Union is still debatable. Please, if you are 100% sure it was a deliberate genocide, that targeted ukrainian ethnic exclusively, and not just peasants but all classes of society of that ethnic, share your source, please.

 

Holodomor targeted the rural, farming class.

Ukrainians, Kazakstanis, Russians, Poles, Jews died.

it was a class genocide.

 

Neither did Walter Duranty, yet Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Joe Lieberman and Patty Murray did.

I bet you haven't seen the Holodomor Memorial in Washington, DC, either:



The site for the Memorial was given to the Ukrainians by our government.

Perhaps, the reason you haven't seen the evidence is because you haven't been looking hard enough?

http://www.faminegenocide.com/kuryliw/the_ukrainian_genocide.htm

And their deaths are classified as democide, just as they are in China and elsewhere.

 

I don't support Communism or Fascism as they as similarly both extreme cases of the Socialism and Capitalism models. Nothing extreme ever works. But I've noticed that die-hard capitalist love to quote Venezuela in arguments against Socialism as if the only thing that factored in was their economic system.

Venezuela is the same size as Texas but with 5 million less people. 85% of it's population lives in urban areas in the North. It separated from Spain in 1821 but didn't acquire full sovereign independence (from Columbia, Panama, and Ecuador) until 1830. The majority of the 19th century it experienced political instability, dictatorial rule, and revolutionary turbulence. The first half of the 20th century was marked by authoritarian rule -- including dictatorships from 1908-1935 and from 1950-1958. It's economy shifted from agricultural to petroleum production.

Now they don't set those prices (petroleum prices) do they? No, the International Market sets the price, and they do it with USD. Do you know what the exchange rate is? (12/96): 477 bolivars = USD $1 (and that was back in 1996 and has been falling ever since). Yet they still held exports of $22.8 billion on average. Unlike Texas, Venezuela is a sovereign nation (not a state connected to a buch of other states with a combined federal bailout system). Capitalism would never work there because it's natural resources are limited to Petroleum (25% of GDP), Agriculture (5% GDP) and Manufacturing (21.5% GDP). The smartest thing they did was disengage from international conflicts (because they couldn't afford it) but that's a sword that cuts both ways because it limits trade agreements. If anything they should have gone Communist a long time ago, built up their military (primarily navy) and some strong air-defense. Currently they have $28.07 billion in exports and $17.8 billion in imports (that's down by more than half) $11 billion in the private sector and $6.8 billion in the public sector. Communism is now their only way out because they were never strong enough to be independent of the Republic of Gran Colombia. All of Central America is going to be forced to follow this path eventually (especially if Trump gets his wall built).

The point is, you cannot base you argument on what economic system is better than another without considering all the factors. The situation in one Nation is completely different than the needs of another Nation with different natural resources and military strength. If you depend on Imports then you need a strong military to negotiate deals that are affordable. China is about to be the next global currency holder for exactly this reason (and China is Socialist). Fascism always kills itself because in large population nations to does become too big to fail. Fascism cannot support or survive in large populations. Fascism and Communism are not compatible with democracy. Socialism and Capitalism are compatible with democracy and both require large populations and surplus natural resources. Both Russia and China would be just fine in a Capitalist or Socialist system, but not Fascism. Fascism, in Russia and China, would kill them like a cancer.

 

Are you an education denier?

 

"Nothing killed more than leftism". I doubt that Leopold 2 who commited a genocide in congo was a leftist. The list of horrors commited by conservative ideologies is rather long too.
But anyway, justifying crimes because other people commited crimes is silly. It's what do muslim terrorists all the time for instance.

I don't say that communism/socialism was a good thing.


I'm just saying that in 1848, when people were working 12 hours a day, dying at young age broken by work and starving despite their hard work, the wish of revolt was justified.

Karl Marx was mad, but he had few reasons in 1848 to anticipate what horror would have become his ideology. In fact, he could, if he would have studied more seriously the french revolution and see what good intentions can lead too.

You can stay in your black/white vision of life, I don't care.

That's leftism who bring the abolition of slavery, the right to go to school for every children, to not be christian, to give freedom to women and equality under the law between white and non white, the right for gay to marry. When those ideas was formulated, they were "leftist" ideas.
That's not conservative of those time who wished for that, that's the leftist of this time even if I must admit nowodays leftist became a mockery of what it was during the age of enlightenment.

"I'd throw in line with the rest". Death threat ? I like that. I wouldn't mind in that case to shoot you either if you try but you shouldn't hope I would burry you, crows are good enough for you.

 

I almost support this version, but there also factors that are... Overlooked, I assume. Losses of people happened not only due to death from starvation... There go diseases - some farmers started hiding grain from expropriation by government, to sell it privately for much higher price, and some of the grain spoiled and caused harsh food poisoning, when got processed, including to those farmers who kept it for themselves. There goes drop in birth rate - not only pregancy went horrible for many, the fertility itself dropped severily. The medical problems - as I pointed already, caused by spoiled grain getting in food prouction, and by starvation, even if people were not dying from it - weakened body was prone to diseases, and when we speak about rural areas, in 30th(!), medicine was way not always available when needed - and some people were just not surviving trip to the nearest clinic, even if were going there. In the environment, that famine have created, anti-sanitary flourished in some areas, and there come more diseases.

That all have been only made worse, when people resolved to cannibalism. The idea itself is sickening and ruining for psycology and spirit, and capable of driving people insane. On top of that - more sicknesses, the "meat" getting easily spoiled, and causing more death.

Yet not all of "losses" from statistics are dead. These were 30th, I remind you - iron curtain have not fallen yet, and people were relatively free to migrate - it was hard to move out with property, but possible. And people were massively fleeing the regions where famine struck the most.

Similar have happened in Ireland, during the Great Famine - country lost a quarter of all population at least, but losses not were all dead - many fled the country, and migrated - mainly to USA.

Ask yourself - where russian and ukrainian and belarusian other diasporas across the world come from? Sure, there have been other waves of migration - people have fled from Civil War, people fled from ruins left by Second World War, some people scattered across the world in late 80th and early 90th, when Union got dissoluted and countries, that formed it, stood by themselves and in uncertainity - but in 30th people were fleeing from opression of Stalin's regime, from collectivisation and famine.

All these numbers add to casualties of Golodomor, and...

The moment Yushenko have spoke of the famine being symbol to unite ukrainians as nation - the numbers grew. Ten millions dead, you say..?
Kiev says ten millions lost - delicately not specifying, where the numbers have came from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

It is a tradegy, that like a mirror reflected the problems rest of world went through during the Great Depression, and amplified it - and caused millions of death over Union - but used as a political whore, repeatedly reped by one or other dirtymouther oligarch, that uses it to direct efforts of people, and most importantly - their attention - anywhere else, but at their own actions, while they steal from budged and use political power they gained to deal with their opponents and business competitiors.

 

I don't support Communism and Fascism, either, as they are both off-shoots of Socialism and are virulently anti-individual in theory and practice.

I agree that nothing extreme works, but the reason why conservatives, libertarians and other individualists point to Venezuela in their arguments against socialism is because it provides a contemporary example of the myriad failures of socialism that we can watch unfold before our very eyes. For older Americans such as myself, this is but just one in another sad example of what happens to countries that fully embrace socialism, but for younger Americans Venezuela presents an opportunity to actually watch a socialist country descend into dictatorship and destitution and witness the struggle of freedom-loving people attempting to restore their democracy and prosperity:

I'm with them. How about you?

That's a fair point, but we can base an argument for or against any particular socio-economic system based on its outcomes, and we can reinforce our positions when those systems produce a consistent result in a wide variety of countries. For example, does the system promote freedom or authoritarianism? Does the system produce prosperity or destitution? Has the system improved people's lives or made them worse? So on and so forth. It's very easy to measure these outcomes and arrive at an objective assessment of any system and then compare them to other systems and their outcomes. No system is perfect, but some are better than others. Going back to the observation that nothing extreme works, I think most of us can agree that the democratic hybrid capitalist-socialist systems are working best precisely because they are capable of moderating the extreme. The question is how much of each strikes the proper balance, and I think we can expect the answer to constantly change with the prevailing social and economic conditions.

 

No, I'm a re-education denier.

 

Soci

Socialism has worked for many decades is several countries. Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Germany, France, Canada, Italy, Norway, Finland and many other countries have been successfully practicing socialism for over half a century. Your statement that "everyone who believes socialism (in any form) will work is naive", is a complete falsehood. You have been propagandize by the lying scum who are making a killing on overbloated insurance costs and pharmaceutical gougers.

 

Soviets, Cuba, North Vietnam, China, North Korea... NONE were communists. No state could be because there's no such thing as "communist state". That's a stupid oxymoron. Communism = "stateless society". State is only a TOOL to reach that society therefore state can't be communist. It can be proletariat dictatorship at its best and that is doomed to be abolished. If you say the USSR was just a fascist empire, that makes sense but when you say USSR or any of its allies were "communist states" you mess it all up. You should study some terminology. No good.

 

Of course they were Communists and Socialists and they did their best to apply their particular theories (Marxist, Leninist, Maoist, etc.) and achieve their particular goals in practice. However, their predictable abject failure to do so doesn't make them Austrian School Libertarians.

Don't be so anal - terminology can be vague and imprecise.

 

ask yourself why only the Olgino guy liked your post ...
ps answer is - yes with this famine sovok´s nomenclature targeted Ukraine and Ukrainian nation/language , here are the maps:




"The Ethnicities of the USSR (ethnographic map published by the Soviet authorities in 1941)" this map from 1941 included Kuban´,





if you need an explanation why was it so, i can write it for you

 

but we call German national socialists for the fascists , right? according Marxism yes, according (later ) Muscovite Stalinism - no . but you made many good points here... i say sovok was the nomenclature- Muscovite- fascist- totalitarian-fake Marxism empire , do you agree?

 

Karl Marx about Muscovy (ussr)

"....The bloody mire of Mongolian slavery, not the rude glory of the Norman epoch, forms the cradle of Muscovy, and modern Russia is but a metamorphosis of Muscovy." http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1857/russia/ch04.htm

 

And in comes Litwin.

 

And begins with being wrong three times in two sentences.

 

And, of course, puts in his "mongolian" narrative.

 

And where are those countries today? All are having financial issues and their govt's are failing to meet promises and expectations, most have severe issues with immigrants and general social breakdown.

It takes time for systems to collapse. Look at the nations that started with strong totalitarianism. It took the USSR 70 years. After 40 years, China was on the road to implosion until it witnessed the USSR collapse and took a jog away from socialism in an attempt to delay the inevitable. After 40 years, Cuba is a basket case.

For simplicity, say it takes 50 years for a totalitarian system to implode. All the nations you named did not start as socialist - it takes them time to become socialist plus 50 years to collapse.

The advantage is that wise people look at history and the data, see the road they are on, recognize their future, and try to change it. Any sane person would avoid the socialist road.

 

Lol, you regret him not being mummified", not surprise mostly all moskali seem to think koba gruzin is a demagogue! He would've tried to reach further into Europe back in 49 during Berlin airlift, Truman mentioned to him he'll make moscow glow in the dark, if he moved any further.

 

Truths are b**** aren't they?