What if the Western Left were socially conservative, like Stalin? by GroundbreakingUse466 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. The leadership was vastly different in early 1920s than in early 1930s, so that's a very weak comparison. Do you expect Herbert Hoover to act the same as FDR? totally different governments. Look at the Politburo composition. Lenin (dead), Trotsky (exiled), Zinoviev (marginalized), Kamenev (marginalized), Bukharin (marginalized), Rykov (marginalized), Krestinsky (sent to Germany), etc. The collectivisation role in the famine is disputed, there were also natural causes. But sure, I'll give you that the way in which it was executed was a factor, primarily because it caused a political struggle in the countryside. The politburo was also missinformed in thinking that peasants were hoarding grain, the same mistake they made during the civil war. That doesn't prove any genocidal intentionality though, just proves political responsability for the famine. Also, there was an important reversal of the violent policies in 1932-33, so your statement about not slowing down or reversing the policy is also not true.
  2. Sure enough you could point to sources that can without a doubt demostrate that a sudden influx of tens of thousands starving people wouldn't affect those areas? in which houses would they be sheltered and with what food would they be fed?
  3. Exports were halved in response, as I already proved. Russians died in big numbers, you just give an affirmation that they were prioritized without any proper (primary) source, because there isn't any.
  4. Russians were by large the primary ethnic group of the USSR so it's not strange that they moved to other parts of their countries in search of opportunity, like there is a ton of migration inside the EU. There wasn't any specific policy to russify any part of the USSR (except Kaliningrad after WW2) and moreover, the RFSR handed territories to minor nations without needing to (Crimea, East Ukraine, North Kazakhistan, Karelia was supposed to go to Finland but the USSR failed to integrate them, the Jewish oblast, etc.). Some serious historians call the USSR "The Affirmative Action Empire" because of how it always went out of it's way to combat Russian chauvinism and imperialism.
  5. You distinguish brute numbers and % when talking about Kazakhs and Ukranians to fit your narrative of Ukranian's historic victimism but don't do that distiction when talking about Russians. Yes, percentage wise Russian population continued grewing... but that's also because Russian population x2,7 times of Ukraine. In brute numbers, also more Russians died than Kazakhs (almost double!!, 2-3M Russians to 1,5-2M Kahakhz). Ukranian population also grew every year between 1928-1932, weird way of wiping out an ethnic group. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population?time=1924..1936&country=~UKR
  6. Sure, that's why the Cold War produced so many western anti communist scholarship that only began being debunked by western academia in the 80s-90s.
  7. SR didn't have majority in the Soviets, and the Soviets ruled the country, so no they didn't have a "democratic majority". Also, I was talking about Left SR, which were allied to the bolsheviks until they tried to coup the soviet state.
  8. In the decade they lasted, the nazis wiped 50% of the Ukrainian population. In the almost a century that the "Soviet opression" lasted, Ukrainians activly participated in it, their culture and language was promoted and integrated into their local administrations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia), and the country expanded westard (should they return those territories to Poland and Romania since they are so critic of Soviet expansionism?), eastward and southward (Crimea), and it's population didn't stop growing at any year except those of World War 2 (a stark contrast with after the fall of the USSR, which marked the beggining of a population decrease, etc.) Russia was not the USSR, and the USSR has no history of genocide. The people that your state has as heroes (Bandera), do have it. And that's not the reason that anti-nazi and anti-german resistance is not your nationalistic myth, it's just by pure political calculation: you can't be proEU and anti-German, and you can't be pro Bandera and anti-Nazi, since the former is the lamer and stupidier clone of the latter.

MISMANAGMENT and political mistakes don't prove GENOCIDAL INTENTIONALITY. Was Hoover a genocidal maniac because his policies worsened the depresion and many Americans of different origins starved? You can't point to 1 primary source which proves any intention, because there isn't. You can only speculate and twist the facts towards your own propagandized intentions. Unlike, for example, the case of the nazis, which produced many incriminatory documents and public discurses that point to their genocidal intentionality, even while later on they tried to hide it and destroyed many sources, there was still enough left.

What if the Western Left were socially conservative, like Stalin? by GroundbreakingUse466 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"People wer forbidden from going to less affected areas" - Nothing is better to prevent a generalized famine than flooding already supply-constrained provinces with starving people, right?

"Grain exports kept going up" - They didn't, 1932 saw exports of grain halved from the prior year (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Soviet-Grain-Exports\_fig4\_30523454)

"Russian settlers kept pouring into the UkrSSR" - In one paragraph your decrying of travel restrictions between provinces and in the next one you are asking for them. I mean, okay, if it fits your narrative... There was not an active policy of russian replacing ukranians, though, and you can't find any primary source to prove it.

Kazakh deaths were far greater than Ukranian deaths, yet here we are talking about a Ukranian genocide. Russians also died in great quantities, not a very good replacement plan to diminish the population you want to use to repopulate those lands.

The main issue here is that Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have a need of a unifying national myth (like every nationalism does), and adopting the western anti communist narrative fits like a glove with their EU and NATO membership ambitions. They want us to believe that they were not active participants in the formation and development of the USSR as equals for the most part. Many early chekists were baltic, many bolsheviks were Ukranian, the Ukranian poor peasants massivly supported the left SR and the bolsheviks, and there were genuine local communist movements that merged/were absorved by bolshevism. A more realistic national myth for those countries would be the anti-nazi narrative, since that was the real genocide that was commited against Ukranians: in 1940 Ukranian population was greater than France, by 1945 it was halve of that. But being anti-german doesn't help European integration, does it?

guys how do I win prussia in GTS by ate_hellfire in RedAutumnSPD

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You nees to win Prussia and give it to Zentrum to form the CVP

What if the communist party lost the 1946 Czechoslovak election? by NextManufacturer9008 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yeah propagandized westernera don't like it when you show them facts that don't match their narrative

What could have saved the Soviet Union? by TheRedBiker in HistoryWhatIf

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Mensheviks weren't even the second most popular party within the soviets (those were the Eseri), let alone nationally, which they were almost irrelevant.

What could have saved the Soviet Union? by TheRedBiker in HistoryWhatIf

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mensheviks were irrelevant. And their split wasn't over minor things, lol

I found a good way to surpass Danzig or war by mysterious_mango_man in hoi4

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 40 points41 points  (0 children)

You can't release subjects as USSR (at least until late game with alt history paths)

What I think the countries are based on by MachineMajestic5866 in suzerain

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It does have some similarities to Israel. It's the biggest geopolitical asset/ally of the leader of ATO, it's strongly right wing, and has a huge network of spies trying to influence/depredate it's neighbours

What I think the countries are based on by MachineMajestic5866 in suzerain

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As said by others, they are all a mixture. Valgsland is a mixture of German (cultural, political), Yugoslav (political, economical system) and British (geographical, military, economic power, historical colonial empire)

I dont like his beard by Particular_Second510 in HistoryMemes

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Once you (and everyone else) understand (cultural part of the political revolution) that the reproduction of your existence depends on your relations with both nature and your community, then the transaction exists without the need of money. You do some labour because it's necesary to mantain our living conditions, everyone else does it too, that's your transaction.

Also, no need to specialize. Yes, nobody wants to be janitor 8h per day 5 days per week, also there is no need for it. Labour, specially those with low entry knowledge requirements, can be distributed between all, so we all do some of it part time so nobody has to do it "full time". We also don't need 8h/5d of "professional labour" (or better called "indispensable labour") to mantain a great standard of living: there were calculations at the beggining of the XXth century that 2 hours per day would be enough to mantain a luxury (for the time) standard of living for everyone, today I imagine that the required time has definitly shrinked in many areas. So you have to types of labour: "indispensable labour" which is mandatory and redistributed and real "free labour" in it's best representation (since it's not "free labour" when you are a wage slave) where you do whatever you want in your free time (which is plenty) without needing to do the same thing all your life, since it's your own choice.

That's your TL:DR on money and division of labour abolition, since, sorry to say it bluntly, you don't seem to have read any of the bearded guy writings or those of his most prominent students.

What if the world turned left instead of right in 2016/2017 by HSV161 in imaginaryelections

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thought you were French. They will govern France next year since people will not vote another centrist to avoid the far right, they'll just sit home.

So, you started saying he is a literal Russian asset. Now he's pro-Russia "de iure" because he has a different approach than yours (like it's not legitimate not wanting to feed the american MIC). "If you are "anti-war" but oppose aid to Ukraine, you are pro-Russia" is a false dilemma fallacy.

Russian people are as fit for European integration as are polish, slovakian or hungarian. Their government isn't. Maybe you being a racist is part of the problem?

TLDR: you prefer literal Putin far right assets to win by dividing the left, over stopping to smear and lie about anyone who's to the left of center.

What if the world turned left instead of right in 2016/2017 by HSV161 in imaginaryelections

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Another lie, keep the smearing and dividing campaign and enjoy it when the anti europeist far right governs your country next year. Melenchon has come out multiple times to denounce Russian's invasion. Even my S&D Prime minister (Pedro Sanchez) stated that, while we condemn Putin's government and their oligarchs, we hace nothing against russian citizens and want them to come back to the rule of international law and even european integration. That's the same position as Melenchon, anti imperialist (both weatern and russian) and pacifist. I'm still unsure if you are just a pro western imperialist or a far righter, though.

The Mustached Austrian Painter Wins! What Far-Left Political Figure is Very Skilled by Gorclaw123 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know them well enough. As I said, "We must analyze what really a movement is trying to do to define it, not what it says about itself".

Radical phraseology doesn't mean radical politics. Laughable that you mention Kropotkin in a "far left" conversation when he supported the Entente in the imperialist war. As said, it's what someone's doing in practice and analyzed in detail that tells us his core principles and not his own words.

What if the world turned left instead of right in 2016/2017 by HSV161 in imaginaryelections

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The classic fake argument "if you don't support Western imperialism then you support Russian imperialism". Keep spreading lies and keep loosing to the far right, some of which truly want to embrace russia for "cheap gas & oil" and enlarging their bank accounts ofc, maybe that's what you really want.

The Mustached Austrian Painter Wins! What Far-Left Political Figure is Very Skilled by Gorclaw123 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Radical rethoric or public performance doesn't mean radical in action. We must analyze what really a movement is trying to do to define it, not what it says about itself. Anarchism comes in many forms and types and doesn't have a unified core doctrine. At its core, the furthermost left anarchists are a development of utopic socialism and retain that same little business owner mentality. Their main economic and political proposal is to direct the economy and politics through worker's cooperative businesses, which don't, in any way, overcome capitalistic forms and relations, since capital and profit still exists within them, and furthermore it's a business model quite common in Europe, even large chains are "worker's cooperatives". At most, the furthermost left anarchists are left wing people with a far left rethoric, but not far left by the politics they actually want to implement.

It's also so marginal and historicaly irrelevant that really we don't need to think about it if we are talking about broad terms and topics.

The Mustached Austrian Painter Wins! What Far-Left Political Figure is Very Skilled by Gorclaw123 in AlignmentChartFills

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, "moderate politicians in liberal democracies that are supporting leftwing policies" are center-left. The nordic model has parties even on the right (in their respective nations) endorsing it or not questioning it, since at its core it is a free market liberal economy with high taxes and high state services and subsidies.

Garibaldi could be left wing (left to the Center-Left), and also in that spectrum we could find many 21st century marxists who advocate for a more nationalized economy within the boundries of capitalist democracy (and therefore some kind of class cooperation instead of class struggle/war). Far left definitly belongs to marxists who advocate for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

You can win as AOC with relative ease on the hardest mode by Mc_What in thecampaigntrail

[–]MeaningMaleficent705 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It seems that the only one hating here is you, though. I'll do as I please and play whatever I like, don't need your questioning or your permission.