Churchill, one of the most revered figures in the Anglosphere, celebrated the export of food away from people who were starving. He would respond to questions on it mockingly. In India's case he took a type of joy in it since he hated people who weren't white. Was a different time sure, but he was particularly vile when it came to this.
Along with CM002, Rimu, dude, the quok guy, eyekaytee, Goat, Lund, gedelliyah... The whole .world mod/admin team, along with .works, and now midwest.social, several anime, more I've probably not mentioned.
PJ is a social fascist, essentially. PJ nearly always posts anti-communist memes that range from horribly misleading to outright disinformation, and will frequently misquote Marx or other leftists to justify opposing communism and supporting imperialism. Further, PJ stalks my account from time to time and tries to grab content for the Nazi bar they moderate, so at a personal level I'd say I'm not a fan.
Huh, I guess I haven't paid too much attention to that. I've only ever engaged with their historical posts that they've put up. I'll probably have to look up social fascistism. I've used Umberto's 14 points, is it kinda like that?
I'm not a fan of Eco's 14 points as an identification of fascism. They are common characteristics of fascism, but not the definition of it nor do they explain the rise and fall of fascism. Fascism is better seen as capitalism in decay, as the methods of colonialism applied domestically. The Nazis essentially tried to colonize Europe, treating the rest of Europe the way Europe treats the global south.
Social fascism is essentially a term for those that want to retain imperialist welfare states, bribing the working classes with welfare and siding with imperialism and neocolonialism to fund them, rather than socialism. The German SPD hated the communists, and worked with the Nazis to kill the KPD off, enabling the rise of Nazism in Germany. It's no coincidence that PJ loves the German SPD.
Scotland has forgotten that we had the famine too. That and the clearences lead to thousands of Highlanders migrating to Glasgow. Today the West of Scotland has some of the most deprived areas in Europe.
Ireland understands and has confronted its generational trauma. We swept ours under the rug and the consequences are stark.
Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the north of England were getting fucked by the aristocracy long before the empire.
They should never have banned dueling for the lords. If anything they should have kept dueling not only legal, but the only way they can retain their honor after any slight.
Also we need their duels to be public events sponsored by firearms companies and first aid kits for ballistic trauma!
It should have been. I know it was never legal. Even in the 1380s they called it an ancient and outdated custom. But as far as I am concerned with most of the real innovation and thinking done with the masses (unlike the past when the only learned people were the wealthy) we can let those idiots shoot and stab one another as much as they want. As long as it is done by them on them.
I would have FORCED Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg to go on the fight that Elon Musk challenged him on, and it must be done until serious injury or death.
If they decline. They lose everything. And I mean EVERYTHING.
Combination of it barely being taught in schools and this weird contempt we have for our heritage. Ireland has put a lot of effort into preserving theirs. And they had Sinead O'Connor - she did a lot of the heavy lifting all by herself 😅
Same with languages. Scots Gaelic has all but died out in the highlands. Now its just a cultural relic and an annoyance. Search for news stories about the Gaelic road signs - they caused a massive stir.
Irish on the other hand - nearly died out but their government really pushed it in schools, the media etc. Poured real money into it. Its fairly widely spoken now.
I think the “exported food during a famine” part deserves some examination. Because doing this in itself may or may not be justified.
For the Soviet Union, I have heard this as an anti-communist talking point for both the famine that occurred during the civil war in the 20s and the famine of the early 30s. In both cases the Soviet Union was totally justified in exporting food during a famine. Why? Because having food in itself doesn’t necessarily solve a famine. You need inputs (like fertilizer) and capital (like farming equipment). For the Soviet Union, agriculture was essentially still pre-modern. They were seriously lacking both in both famines. The decision to export was not “let’s make some side cash by starving our people”. Rather it was recognizing that selling X units of food today would yield X+Y units in the future by using the proceeds to improve your agricultural situation. Food was swapped for inputs and capital. It’s an incredibly difficult decision to make, but it’s the rational one and in the end saves more lives.
But the British in Ireland in the late 1848? That was just allowing the invisible hand of the free market to do its thing. Produce sold for more in England so they shipped it off, because England was significantly richer than Ireland. You can say the famine wasn’t the intentional result of the British government perhaps, but you can’t say it’s not the expected and natural outcome of free market capitalism.
And then the British in Bengal? I’m not quite as familiar I’ll admit but IIRC that was just the Brits needing more food for themselves so they took it from India, consequences for Indians be damned.
England was richer than Ireland? That implies Irish people had some level of choice... Ireland was a colony of the British empire and as such were responsible for it's citizens and the Irish people had no say in where the crops were sold to. Irish people, by and large, couldn't afford those crops anyway and so relied the potatoes they grew. When that failed for consecutive harvests, they starved because the landowners continued to sell the other food sources abroad rather than helping. The invisible hand of the market has little or nothing to do with it because they could never have bought the crops anyway, it was just greed and cruelty.
British policy resulted in the death of 100 million people during the Raj. The Bengal famine is just one example and was not even the most deadly.
In Bengal:
Fearing a Japanese invasion through Burma, the British enacted a scorched-earth policy in coastal Bengal. They confiscated or destroyed tens of thousands of boats, bicycles, and carts (the lifeblood of the local transport and fishing economy) and seized rice stocks so the Japanese couldn't use them. This completely destroyed the rural economy.
Stockpiled food strictly to feed military troops, civil servants, and industrial defense workers in Calcutta. Rural peasants were entirely abandoned to the market.
To pay for the war, the British printed massive amounts of paper currency in India. This caused the price of rice to skyrocket by up to 600%, completely pricing out rural laborers.
When the scale of the famine became global news, other countries offered to help. Canada offered to send ships loaded with 100,000 tons of emergency wheat. The United States also offered food aid. Churchill’s government turned them down, refusing to provide or allow the shipping vessels required to transport the grain to India.
To protect Britain’s international reputation during World War II, the British colonial government heavily censored the Indian press. They banned newspapers from using the word "famine" or publishing photographs of the skeletal bodies lining the streets. It wasn't until a British editor of an English-language newspaper in Calcutta broke ranks and published gruesome photographs that the British public—and the world—realized the scale of the horror.
When British officials in Bengal like Leo Amery petitioned Churchill for aid he responded with:
Stating it was the fault of Bengalis for breeding like rabbits.
Asking why Gandhi hadn't died yet.
Stating that he "hated Indians" as they are a "beastly people with a beastly religion"
To which Amery replied: "I am by no means sure whether on this subject [India] Winston is really quite sane... I told him that I didn't see much difference between his outlook and Hitler's."
I don't fault you for a second for not knowing. Most people don't know this history because they didn't want you to know. But it's all available in the public record if anyone wants to learn more.
And they still think they were civilising people. There is a reason with West is associated with hypocrites. Atleast teach your population that colonisation was wrong no matter how you look at it.
Few nations without corpses in the basement in their history. Important the current behavior, the history of other countries can't be used as valuation without hypocrisy, only if they had not learned from it.
That's a good point. The real problem is that the land and resources they stole through brazen force still remain in the hands of Western megacorps in a system of neocolonialism, and whenever any of the exploited countries try to tax or regulate that (much less reclaim their resources altogether), they get sanctioned into oblivion, if not overthrown outright.
Actually, I grew up in USSR and frankly, I was shocked when I saw at how much worse the propaganda in the west. Most people in USSR understood there was domestic propaganda and were able to think critically about it. Meanwhile, Westerners gobble their propaganda up completely uncritically, and many don't even realize they have domestic propaganda.
To a communist, a "liberal" is someone who supports capitalism, private property, and gradual, systemic reform rather than the complete abolition of the class system.
It also stands for rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law, which communism doesn't guarantee, but you put emphasis in the meme.
I don’t call all communists tankies. Only the tankies.
This reeks of "I'm not calling all Black/Asian/Muslim people Slur/Pejorative just those who don't fit what I think the good ones should look like" rightwing nonsense.
But it's not, you see, because tankies call themselves tankies, and it's a voluntary political designation besides.
Is calling fundamentalists "fundies" a slur?
Is calling Republicans "elephants" a slur? Democratic "donkeys" a slur?
What about the term "Dems?", is that a slur? "Rs"?
It reeks of it only because they are using single words to describe a multi-layered something for the sake of brevity. It's a pronoun. You are against pronouns.
Tankies call ourselves as such because we have 3 options, when the pejorative is flung at us:
Attack the legitimacy of the pejorative itself. For example, point out that it really only means "someone who supports existing socialist states" at a consistent level.
Own the term. By accepting the pejorative, you acknowledge that the line of division between the tankie and the one accusing the other of being a tankie is the fact that the accuser views the tankie as unjustifiably supporting socialist states, while the tankie believed their support to be justified, usually due to a difference in perspective, historiography, and understanding. This forces the conversation forward, to discussions of existing socialism, and what tankies actually support.
Accept that the pejorative exists, but vehemently deny that it applies to you.
Only 1 and 2 actually have a leg to stand on, and present a path forward. The reason we tankies accept the pejorative isn't because the liberal idea of a tankie is a real thing, but because the liberals correctly identify communists as belonging to a coherent group that falls under the same category. This doesn't mean it isn't a pejorative and a strawman, it's like "feminazi" back when that term was popular, only for socialism instead of feminism.
Like "feminazi," tankie is a term used to dismiss people as holding unreasonable views. It's by definition a pejorative and strawman, just like "feminazi."
Top one is about Bengali Famine? Or the Irish one? Because I am sure you only meant one of those and forgot about the others.
My favourite (didn't make to top 5) is when UK betrayed Poland after WW2 and gave it to Soviets because - I shit you not, that was one of the arguments Churchill gave - they needed Polish soldiers in UK to repopulate peasant villages.
According to the memoirs of one of the MPs who protested it (forgive me but I don't remember which one, there were like 25 of them), in a closed door session that was among arguments Churchill made.
The British exported food during famine to enrich themselves off the backs of Irish, Scottish, Indian, and other colonized peoples. The Soviets exported grain during the 1930s Soviet famine to trade for agricultural machinery to end a naturally occurring famine, and redirected grain to alleviate the famine where they could.
The British slaughtered colonized peoples, both armed and unarmed. The Soviets put down reactionary counterrevolutions that were armed.
The British colonized territories, erasing any autonomy and running their economies on extraction. The Soviets were anti-colonial, and generally helped set up socialist democracy, liberating the working classes.
The British frequently arrested and executed people even for simple backtalk against colonialism and imperialism. The Soviets censored, and did execute people when evidence of an anti-soviet force was brewing to overthrow socialism.
If you erase all of the context, you can find similarities. However, just like you can say Nazis and communists are both "violent," what matters is who that violence is used against, and for what aims. It's necessary to investigate beyond surface level comparisons.
It is so funny how you people can't read. There is nothing about any other side but the British here. You just need to interject your bullshit. Thanks for announcing a new useless account to block.
Claiming that all people are like this everywhere is tantamount to genocide apologia because it implies that there's absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about genocide. You're basically stating this is the natural order of things and people are gonna just do this whenever sufficient political power is amassed.
That is absolutely false and ahistorical, genocides are thankfully not as common as white westerners like to pretend they are (just because they're always involved in them), and it's not because there haven't been other societies in a position to enact them.
Meh, humans are pretty much the same no matter where they're physically located. Some are decent enough — a small percentage are even quite good — but the large majority are varying degrees of shitty, with a small number (e.g. the "one percenters") being irredeemably so.
Easy to put words in my mouth, huh? Shitty is shitty, regardless of who or where. Point out where I've EVER treated one side differently from the other in that regard.
Otherwise, maybe stop being shitty yourself with all the projectionist bullshit. You're being no better than you claim I am.
The privilege you(we) experience in the west is a direct result of exploitation of the global south. While you sit there allowed to have free will, post shit in your home with electricity, your government is not only forcing other countries not to export their own goods for the benefit of the people in the country (Cuba, etc) but also make it ILLEGAL for any other country to sell them crucial commodities or buy anything from them. So it’s not about individual experience and more about the entire geopolitical history of the exploitation domestically (slave trade) and abroad and YOU personally benefit from it. All of our lives could be so much better if we operated more like China, Cuba, Vietnam or the USSR, economically, legally, etc.
Nobody is talking about bootlicking. Power is not a supernatural corruptive force. Administration does not turn people evil. What's important is class analysis, as people do act in their class interests generally.
Yeah that's why train drivers derail on purpose all the time, the raw power they hold over peoples lives just corrodes their immortal soul. They're just like cops when you think about it.
Class isn't supernatural, correct. It's a material relation. Capitalists are interested as a class in retaining private ownership, workers are materially interested in collectivizing production. This isn't a corruptive force, but pure class interest. As for power supernaturally corrupting, no, it is not well-studied by psychology.
I find it interesting that the study focused on power holders within the capitalist system, which incentivizes selfish behavior, greed, and abuse of power. In a system that does not incentivize those things, I think there would be very different results.
Exactly. Idealists know, that when they engage with material evidence that doesn't fit their narrative, their worldview will get weakened in their own brain. So they have to terminate their thoughts.
And the more material evidence is on an instance, the more thought-termination per idealist there will be. An approximate formula would be:
amount of thought termination on a particular instance = amount of facts on that instance that idealists disagree with * amount of idealists (including federated ones browsing on all-sort)
Few famines before british rule, dozens during, and none after.
Hmmm....
Must've been the climate!
Churchill, one of the most revered figures in the Anglosphere, celebrated the export of food away from people who were starving. He would respond to questions on it mockingly. In India's case he took a type of joy in it since he hated people who weren't white. Was a different time sure, but he was particularly vile when it came to this.
Churchill wins the HP Lovecraft Award for "outstandingly racist even by the standards of an absurdly racist society".
Pugjesus is a psyop
Boot connoisseur at the very least
Put it this way: I don't think PJ is a fed, but I think the fact that he's the feds aren't paying him is wage theft.
Along with CM002, Rimu, dude, the quok guy, eyekaytee, Goat, Lund, gedelliyah... The whole .world mod/admin team, along with .works, and now midwest.social, several anime, more I've probably not mentioned.
iight, I been on here for a while now. Idk if there's some kind of beef with Pugjesus and Cowbee but, I feel like I vibe with them both.
Anyone have the tea?
PJ is a social fascist, essentially. PJ nearly always posts anti-communist memes that range from horribly misleading to outright disinformation, and will frequently misquote Marx or other leftists to justify opposing communism and supporting imperialism. Further, PJ stalks my account from time to time and tries to grab content for the Nazi bar they moderate, so at a personal level I'd say I'm not a fan.
Huh, I guess I haven't paid too much attention to that. I've only ever engaged with their historical posts that they've put up. I'll probably have to look up social fascistism. I've used Umberto's 14 points, is it kinda like that?
I'm not a fan of Eco's 14 points as an identification of fascism. They are common characteristics of fascism, but not the definition of it nor do they explain the rise and fall of fascism. Fascism is better seen as capitalism in decay, as the methods of colonialism applied domestically. The Nazis essentially tried to colonize Europe, treating the rest of Europe the way Europe treats the global south.
Social fascism is essentially a term for those that want to retain imperialist welfare states, bribing the working classes with welfare and siding with imperialism and neocolonialism to fund them, rather than socialism. The German SPD hated the communists, and worked with the Nazis to kill the KPD off, enabling the rise of Nazism in Germany. It's no coincidence that PJ loves the German SPD.
Oof I didn't know PJ likes the SPD. That changes things, I gotta ask them about it the next time a conversation happens. Thanks for the tea ☕
No problem!
The populations of Ireland and Scotland still haven't recovered from what happened to them.
Scotland has forgotten that we had the famine too. That and the clearences lead to thousands of Highlanders migrating to Glasgow. Today the West of Scotland has some of the most deprived areas in Europe.
Ireland understands and has confronted its generational trauma. We swept ours under the rug and the consequences are stark.
Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the north of England were getting fucked by the aristocracy long before the empire.
I just read a little bit about it. Fuck! How did this stay under the rug for so damn long!
Because the aristocracy is still in place. The house of lords should burn.
They should never have banned dueling for the lords. If anything they should have kept dueling not only legal, but the only way they can retain their honor after any slight.
Also we need their duels to be public events sponsored by firearms companies and first aid kits for ballistic trauma!
it was never legal on paper, but it was tradition to judges to let free the winner (murderer) of the duel if the duel followed proper etique
It should have been. I know it was never legal. Even in the 1380s they called it an ancient and outdated custom. But as far as I am concerned with most of the real innovation and thinking done with the masses (unlike the past when the only learned people were the wealthy) we can let those idiots shoot and stab one another as much as they want. As long as it is done by them on them.
I would have FORCED Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg to go on the fight that Elon Musk challenged him on, and it must be done until serious injury or death.
If they decline. They lose everything. And I mean EVERYTHING.
Combination of it barely being taught in schools and this weird contempt we have for our heritage. Ireland has put a lot of effort into preserving theirs. And they had Sinead O'Connor - she did a lot of the heavy lifting all by herself 😅
Same with languages. Scots Gaelic has all but died out in the highlands. Now its just a cultural relic and an annoyance. Search for news stories about the Gaelic road signs - they caused a massive stir.
Irish on the other hand - nearly died out but their government really pushed it in schools, the media etc. Poured real money into it. Its fairly widely spoken now.
I think the “exported food during a famine” part deserves some examination. Because doing this in itself may or may not be justified.
For the Soviet Union, I have heard this as an anti-communist talking point for both the famine that occurred during the civil war in the 20s and the famine of the early 30s. In both cases the Soviet Union was totally justified in exporting food during a famine. Why? Because having food in itself doesn’t necessarily solve a famine. You need inputs (like fertilizer) and capital (like farming equipment). For the Soviet Union, agriculture was essentially still pre-modern. They were seriously lacking both in both famines. The decision to export was not “let’s make some side cash by starving our people”. Rather it was recognizing that selling X units of food today would yield X+Y units in the future by using the proceeds to improve your agricultural situation. Food was swapped for inputs and capital. It’s an incredibly difficult decision to make, but it’s the rational one and in the end saves more lives.
But the British in Ireland in the late 1848? That was just allowing the invisible hand of the free market to do its thing. Produce sold for more in England so they shipped it off, because England was significantly richer than Ireland. You can say the famine wasn’t the intentional result of the British government perhaps, but you can’t say it’s not the expected and natural outcome of free market capitalism.
And then the British in Bengal? I’m not quite as familiar I’ll admit but IIRC that was just the Brits needing more food for themselves so they took it from India, consequences for Indians be damned.
England was richer than Ireland? That implies Irish people had some level of choice... Ireland was a colony of the British empire and as such were responsible for it's citizens and the Irish people had no say in where the crops were sold to. Irish people, by and large, couldn't afford those crops anyway and so relied the potatoes they grew. When that failed for consecutive harvests, they starved because the landowners continued to sell the other food sources abroad rather than helping. The invisible hand of the market has little or nothing to do with it because they could never have bought the crops anyway, it was just greed and cruelty.
With regard to Bengal and India as a whole:
British policy resulted in the death of 100 million people during the Raj. The Bengal famine is just one example and was not even the most deadly.
In Bengal:
Fearing a Japanese invasion through Burma, the British enacted a scorched-earth policy in coastal Bengal. They confiscated or destroyed tens of thousands of boats, bicycles, and carts (the lifeblood of the local transport and fishing economy) and seized rice stocks so the Japanese couldn't use them. This completely destroyed the rural economy.
Stockpiled food strictly to feed military troops, civil servants, and industrial defense workers in Calcutta. Rural peasants were entirely abandoned to the market.
To pay for the war, the British printed massive amounts of paper currency in India. This caused the price of rice to skyrocket by up to 600%, completely pricing out rural laborers.
When the scale of the famine became global news, other countries offered to help. Canada offered to send ships loaded with 100,000 tons of emergency wheat. The United States also offered food aid. Churchill’s government turned them down, refusing to provide or allow the shipping vessels required to transport the grain to India.
To protect Britain’s international reputation during World War II, the British colonial government heavily censored the Indian press. They banned newspapers from using the word "famine" or publishing photographs of the skeletal bodies lining the streets. It wasn't until a British editor of an English-language newspaper in Calcutta broke ranks and published gruesome photographs that the British public—and the world—realized the scale of the horror.
When British officials in Bengal like Leo Amery petitioned Churchill for aid he responded with:
Stating it was the fault of Bengalis for breeding like rabbits.
Asking why Gandhi hadn't died yet.
Stating that he "hated Indians" as they are a "beastly people with a beastly religion"
To which Amery replied: "I am by no means sure whether on this subject [India] Winston is really quite sane... I told him that I didn't see much difference between his outlook and Hitler's."
I don't fault you for a second for not knowing. Most people don't know this history because they didn't want you to know. But it's all available in the public record if anyone wants to learn more.
And they still think they were civilising people. There is a reason with West is associated with hypocrites. Atleast teach your population that colonisation was wrong no matter how you look at it.
Journalist: What do you think of Western civilization?
Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
And he represented the liberal wing of South Asia's decolonial movement! Imagine what the left wing would have said lmao
They call it White Guilt and still spin the narrative to blame non-Europeans and especially non-Anglos, I believe.
You can't really reason with a raider. He will only understand force.
See, right off the bat I'm like "wow, I didn't know the Russians did the same thing as the British with the potato famine"
The borat movie scene where he explains why it’s better to be a dictatorship drives this point home better.
Few nations without corpses in the basement in their history. Important the current behavior, the history of other countries can't be used as valuation without hypocrisy, only if they had not learned from it.
That's a good point. The real problem is that the land and resources they stole through brazen force still remain in the hands of Western megacorps in a system of neocolonialism, and whenever any of the exploited countries try to tax or regulate that (much less reclaim their resources altogether), they get sanctioned into oblivion, if not overthrown outright.
Looking at recent history, some have more than others and have the riches to show for the destruction they engaged in.
Albert Fish ass comment
You put a picture of a Soviet Union flag there because all these things also apply to the Soviet Union, and you know it.
Almost like all empires are bad, no matter what color paint you slather them in.
^ when you're a victim of western 'education' system
34 victims in just a single comment
38 now 🤣
Any education is still better than no education.
clearly not when the purpose is to merely indoctrinate people as opposed to actually teach them to think
Actually, I grew up in USSR and frankly, I was shocked when I saw at how much worse the propaganda in the west. Most people in USSR understood there was domestic propaganda and were able to think critically about it. Meanwhile, Westerners gobble their propaganda up completely uncritically, and many don't even realize they have domestic propaganda.
Damn, I thought it was gonna be hexbear for sure
You know how these things work. Next year they're going to get it for a performance that didn't deserve it as much.
That isn't in the meme at all, can you read?
To a communist, a "liberal" is someone who supports capitalism, private property, and gradual, systemic reform rather than the complete abolition of the class system.
It also stands for rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law, which communism doesn't guarantee, but you put emphasis in the meme.
Liberalism sure as hell doesn't guarantee any of those things
Well, at least it saves us a lot of time when you skip straight to the name-calling phase.
You guys are so boring and your faux-highmindedness falls flat when none of you ever stop calling communists "tankies"
While not being entirely the same
This reeks of "I'm not calling all Black/Asian/Muslim people Slur/Pejorative just those who don't fit what I think the good ones should look like" rightwing nonsense.
But it's not, you see, because tankies call themselves tankies, and it's a voluntary political designation besides.
Is calling fundamentalists "fundies" a slur?
Is calling Republicans "elephants" a slur? Democratic "donkeys" a slur?
What about the term "Dems?", is that a slur? "Rs"?
It reeks of it only because they are using single words to describe a multi-layered something for the sake of brevity. It's a pronoun. You are against pronouns.
Tankies call ourselves as such because we have 3 options, when the pejorative is flung at us:
Attack the legitimacy of the pejorative itself. For example, point out that it really only means "someone who supports existing socialist states" at a consistent level.
Own the term. By accepting the pejorative, you acknowledge that the line of division between the tankie and the one accusing the other of being a tankie is the fact that the accuser views the tankie as unjustifiably supporting socialist states, while the tankie believed their support to be justified, usually due to a difference in perspective, historiography, and understanding. This forces the conversation forward, to discussions of existing socialism, and what tankies actually support.
Accept that the pejorative exists, but vehemently deny that it applies to you.
Only 1 and 2 actually have a leg to stand on, and present a path forward. The reason we tankies accept the pejorative isn't because the liberal idea of a tankie is a real thing, but because the liberals correctly identify communists as belonging to a coherent group that falls under the same category. This doesn't mean it isn't a pejorative and a strawman, it's like "feminazi" back when that term was popular, only for socialism instead of feminism.
Like "feminazi," tankie is a term used to dismiss people as holding unreasonable views. It's by definition a pejorative and strawman, just like "feminazi."
And black people call themselves the N-word does that mean you get to call them it?
No it's a pejorative.
You would think so!
Always a lost little lib on these communities
Top one is about Bengali Famine? Or the Irish one? Because I am sure you only meant one of those and forgot about the others.
My favourite (didn't make to top 5) is when UK betrayed Poland after WW2 and gave it to Soviets because - I shit you not, that was one of the arguments Churchill gave - they needed Polish soldiers in UK to repopulate peasant villages.
The Bengal famine was not even the largest British engineered famine in India.
Willing to learn about it more, as I only ever learned about Bengali one.
You're a fucking idiot
Are you fucking kidding with me? That is insane even for Churchill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Resettlement_Act_1947
According to the memoirs of one of the MPs who protested it (forgive me but I don't remember which one, there were like 25 of them), in a closed door session that was among arguments Churchill made.
not even a ten off. the list of russian atrocities of recent years would make a lot of maniacs blush
And they pale in comparison to the atrocities being committed with full support of the West in the middle east
debatable given the scope.
Right, because you limit your scope to only white people
"Don't you mean all lives matter?"
Not really.
The British exported food during famine to enrich themselves off the backs of Irish, Scottish, Indian, and other colonized peoples. The Soviets exported grain during the 1930s Soviet famine to trade for agricultural machinery to end a naturally occurring famine, and redirected grain to alleviate the famine where they could.
The British slaughtered colonized peoples, both armed and unarmed. The Soviets put down reactionary counterrevolutions that were armed.
The British colonized territories, erasing any autonomy and running their economies on extraction. The Soviets were anti-colonial, and generally helped set up socialist democracy, liberating the working classes.
The British frequently arrested and executed people even for simple backtalk against colonialism and imperialism. The Soviets censored, and did execute people when evidence of an anti-soviet force was brewing to overthrow socialism.
If you erase all of the context, you can find similarities. However, just like you can say Nazis and communists are both "violent," what matters is who that violence is used against, and for what aims. It's necessary to investigate beyond surface level comparisons.
It is so funny how you people can't read. There is nothing about any other side but the British here. You just need to interject your bullshit. Thanks for announcing a new useless account to block.
No they're not, shut up. This is genocide apologia.
Claiming that all people are like this everywhere is tantamount to genocide apologia because it implies that there's absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about genocide. You're basically stating this is the natural order of things and people are gonna just do this whenever sufficient political power is amassed.
That is absolutely false and ahistorical, genocides are thankfully not as common as white westerners like to pretend they are (just because they're always involved in them), and it's not because there haven't been other societies in a position to enact them.
Centrists are really the most useless people on earth
Meh, humans are pretty much the same no matter where they're physically located. Some are decent enough — a small percentage are even quite good — but the large majority are varying degrees of shitty, with a small number (e.g. the "one percenters") being irredeemably so.
China and Russia does something evil:
West does the same or worse:
Could you people be any more hypocrite?
Easy to put words in my mouth, huh? Shitty is shitty, regardless of who or where. Point out where I've EVER treated one side differently from the other in that regard.
Otherwise, maybe stop being shitty yourself with all the projectionist bullshit. You're being no better than you claim I am.
The privilege you(we) experience in the west is a direct result of exploitation of the global south. While you sit there allowed to have free will, post shit in your home with electricity, your government is not only forcing other countries not to export their own goods for the benefit of the people in the country (Cuba, etc) but also make it ILLEGAL for any other country to sell them crucial commodities or buy anything from them. So it’s not about individual experience and more about the entire geopolitical history of the exploitation domestically (slave trade) and abroad and YOU personally benefit from it. All of our lives could be so much better if we operated more like China, Cuba, Vietnam or the USSR, economically, legally, etc.
Honestly I think the biggest predictor of a country doing harm is just the amount of geopolitical power they wield.
Those who can harm others to get ahead, and have that opportunity, do. The British did. And they sure as fuck did an incredible amount of harm
For a hot minute the US has been in a position to do a great deal of harm, and thats exactly what we've done :(
Projection
Curious what you think the biggest predictor would be, then?
The mode of production and distribution.
What Cowbee said. But to simplify, a system that is extractive structurally, will always expand that leeching outside it's borders eventually.
"Hot minute," my ass. We've done some good, but a fuck-ton more evil - albeit a lot of it in more subtle ways than of late.
Power corrupts. It's true for individuals and for organizations and states.
Power is not a supernatural corruptive force, this narrative is spread to prevent people from organizing.
Or we could try to organize while taking this fact into account. Bootlicking is not necessary to organization.
Nobody is talking about bootlicking. Power is not a supernatural corruptive force. Administration does not turn people evil. What's important is class analysis, as people do act in their class interests generally.
Class is not supernatural either. But as i said in another message, the corrupting effect of power is well-studied by psychology.
Yeah that's why train drivers derail on purpose all the time, the raw power they hold over peoples lives just corrodes their immortal soul. They're just like cops when you think about it.
Class isn't supernatural, correct. It's a material relation. Capitalists are interested as a class in retaining private ownership, workers are materially interested in collectivizing production. This isn't a corruptive force, but pure class interest. As for power supernaturally corrupting, no, it is not well-studied by psychology.
Haha, I remember being 15 and just throwing Matrix Thoughts around with no structure to cohere them
And you still do that, apparently.
12 year old response
"I know you are, but what am I!"
No it isn't, for either. Unexamined thought terminating cliches are worthless.
It's not an unexamined thought. It's a scientifically analyzed phenomenon.
I find it interesting that the study focused on power holders within the capitalist system, which incentivizes selfish behavior, greed, and abuse of power. In a system that does not incentivize those things, I think there would be very different results.
Living up to both the name AND the instance's rep - a twofer! I'm impressed.
Thoughts: terminated
Yeah, seems to be an extremely common occurrence here.
Shut up nerd, you all sound the same
Exactly. Idealists know, that when they engage with material evidence that doesn't fit their narrative, their worldview will get weakened in their own brain. So they have to terminate their thoughts.
And the more material evidence is on an instance, the more thought-termination per idealist there will be. An approximate formula would be:
amount of thought termination on a particular instance = amount of facts on that instance that idealists disagree with * amount of idealists (including federated ones browsing on all-sort)
which I'd assume makes lemmy the number one.
Go back to reddit you insufferable dork
Power is not the one ring, it's not magical.
It's true. But my sentence was true too.