Make America Great Again, but Blue.
DSA is a fucking joke. Denounce those bozos in every chance you get.
You know, I’m quite interested in seeing how this attempt at an FDR style new deal project develops. Unlike in FDRs time, the US can’t rely on a world word to destroy the productive worlds industrial capacity, and the US is declining in productive capacity rather than rising. Not to mention the fact that, as mich as we lambast the toothless nature of US commitment to segregation, many if the legal loopholes that were used to divide white and non-white working class are not capable of being plausibly implemented.
My assumption is that the fascists movement currently in power of the US will try to remove naturalized citizen status and remove citizenship from the children of immigrants. That’s the only way I can imagine the US capitalists trying to bribe the settler-class to go along with the greater political project.
From there, the socdems will do nothing to reverse it and try to implement a welfare state to middling effectiveness (I’m doubtful that the current crop of capitlists feel threatened enough to go along with these concessions). At least, this the trajectory I see coming, which frankly is something that can likely end up targeting me, even though I’m a US born citizen.
And also there is no powerful communist movements to threaten American capitalists.
Yeah the whole reason the new deal happened was because they actually feared a socialist uprising.
There is history book on the FDR years called “The Jews Should Keep Quiet”
you gotta do a semiotic analysis of this kind of statement because what the new deal and FDR means to most people is very far removed the reality they didn’t learn about in highschool.
this is fine enough electoral rhetoric given the illiteracy of the population and the purpose of separating his faction from the neoliberals that came in during the 1970s and culminated in clinton’s third way shit.
Idk. I mean, it was certainly bad, and you should criticize it, but it’s not like the USSR didn’t do similar to the Volga Germans, Tartars, etc.
rednote and weibo keep showing me how much chinese people automatically repeat socially reinforced behavior without thinking of why they’re doing like americans do but it’s especially fascinating to me considering that the chinese government has made a lot of it illegal like 9-9-6 work culture – meaning that there’s a hostile environment for anyone exhibiting old prejudices; but they keep doing it anyways.
that coupled with the russian’s unbanning homosexuality in the 1930’s, but it still persisted enough anyways to make then re-ban it makes it clear that social expectations keep trumping woke idealogy and helps me understand why westerners cling onto american propaganda so dearly.
Are you saying the Tartar deportations were propaganda?
I have no idea where this comes from. Lol
The USSR was „raceblind“ in its deportations- Norwegians, Italians, Swedes, Germans, Poles, Latvians, Estonians all got resettled as well. The Internment of Japanese Americans was largely based on racial hysteria.
Though even under Lenin the korean minority was widely distrusted and didn’t get an ASSR - thats something you could criticize.
Difference was that USA packed US-Japanese into camps preemptively without any proof of consistent subversive activity, while in USSR most militarily elibigle Tatars actively collaborated with genocidal invader, what would you do? Nothing? Or maybe treat them as enemies they were?
Comrade, while I do agree the USSR had some legitimate reasons to act, the deportations were a severe crime against humanity, much like what they did to Kazakhs during the forced collectivization (Ukrainians complain a lot but Khazakhs were the most abused). I do defend the legacy of the USSR as a progressive force in the 20th century if you consider the totality of its achievements, but that doesn’t mean that everything was all flowers.
It’s idealism, thrown from the high tower of retrospect. In the reality, USSR was locked into the frantic extreme existential threat fighting against enemy that really wanted to murder every fucking last one of them, and they really show extreme constraint at dealing with groups who openly collaborated with that enemy (if we are to restrospect, way too much constraint sometimes, looking at Baltics). Was it flowers? No. Was it necessary? Quite possible, we don’t know alternative history. Was it justified at the time? Yes
At the time the USSR did the deportations, the definition of genocide recognized internationally (which the USSR was one of the signees) hadn’t been elaborated yet. So, there’s a little bit of anachronism in the critique that the USSR was doing a genocide.
However, the problem as you stated is the collective punishment itself. So the crime of the individuals become the crime of the whole group. So there were Tatar collaborators, but Tatars at a whole were punished. There were no concentration camps or extermination camps like people used to see in West controlled areas. However the displacement of a major group is still a form of collective punishment.
If you apply the same logic that the entire group must be punished for the crimes of the individuals, then you have the Russian collaborators. These Russian collaborators were punished according to their crimes, but not the entire Russian group. And the only reason this happened was because Russians were the majority in the USSR. The Tatars had a different fate, simply because they were an ethnical minority.
That said, I know your instinct to defend the USSR because it’s often subjected to the most hideous lies by the Western press. However it’s also important to recognize the limits and problems of our past comrades, so that we can build a better socialism in the future and avoid the same mistakes.
The Tatars had a different fate, simply because they were an ethnical minority.
I understand you, but you miss the one important metric: scale. They were collaborating as ethnicity and the scale in their case was so huge that basically every man was involved at some level, unlike for example Ukrainians who also had some of the most disgusting collaborators but they were tiny minority with 50 times more people fighting against nazis. So even if you wanted to punish only the guilty, you would then basically did a real genocide, leaving them without men and breaking up the families.
Also i mentioned Baltics, and if anything, Latvians or Estonians who had similar collaboration level as Tatars weren’t punished. The reason for that was that it was not even a punisment in the fist place, but a safeguard. Something that was not anymore needed when USSR liberated Baltics because back then Germany was finished and there was no need to do it anymore.
I know your instinct to defend the USSR because it’s often subjected to the most hideous lies by the Western press. However it’s also important to recognize the limits and problems of our past comrades, so that we can build a better socialism in the future and avoid the same mistakes.
While you do not need to be patronising because i do know what i am saying and what i base it on, i will agree with the overall sentence here. But in this particular case the rhetorics of “collective punishment” and “genocide” and “displacement” (particularly this one which purposefully conflate organised resettlement with one sided expulsion, since the former one was done basically only by USSR while the latter is common by west and their puppets) is precisely the framing used by western propaganda. And do you know that not doing it would have resulted in better or worse outcome? That’s why i said it is idealism, you are framing this as mistake from the retrospect while not even really knowing it was a mistake, just that it was controversial move and it become more controversial as liberalism took over nearly entire world, and the remaining socialists have more pressing matters than to give USSR justice instead of accepting Khrushchevite critiques.
I understand you, but you miss the one important metric: scale. They were collaborating as ethnicity and the scale in their case was so huge that basically every man was involved at some level, unlike for example Ukrainians who also had some of the most disgusting collaborators but they were tiny minority with 50 times more people fighting against nazis. So even if you wanted to punish only the guilty, you would then basically did a real genocide, leaving them without men and breaking up the families.
This is a very strong argument, however it rests in a premise, which is having an entire ethnic group as Nazi collaborators. First, you need to back up this claim with historical evidence. Second, if the majority population were of Nazi collaborators, why did they move them to behind their lines? And in what extent was their collaboration, were the majority of them actively participating in the SS as soldiers, for example?
Also i mentioned Baltics, and if anything, Latvians or Estonians who had similar collaboration level as Tatars weren’t punished. The reason for that was that it was not even a punisment in the fist place, but a safeguard. Something that was not anymore needed when USSR liberated Baltics because back then Germany was finished and there was no need to do it anymore.
Sorry, I disagree with this point. The Tatars were not allowed to return, not even after the end of the war, not even after the secret speech by the Khruschevite clique, so I do think there was an element of collective punishment. However I can accept the claim they didn’t think that displacement of a minority group, organized or otherwise, was a crime, since the definition only came later. In this point, liberals often think it’s ok to be anachronistic when they talk about communists, but never when it’s about their own Western regimes.
While you do not need to be patronising because i do know what i am saying and what i base it on, i will agree with the overall sentence here. But in this particular case the rhetorics of “collective punishment” and “genocide” and “displacement” (particularly this one which purposefully conflate organised resettlement with one sided expulsion, since the former one was done basically only by USSR while the latter is common by west and their puppets) is precisely the framing used by western propaganda. And do you know that not doing it would have resulted in better or worse outcome? That’s why i said it is idealism, you are framing this as mistake from the retrospect while not even really knowing it was a mistake, just that it was controversial move and it become more controversial as liberalism took over nearly entire world, and the remaining socialists have more pressing matters than to give USSR justice instead of accepting Khrushchevite critiques.
Please don’t take me by the average liberal. I think our theory and concepts evolve over time, as through studying and reflecting on our own practice we do evolve our knowledge. Looking back at the USSR history we can reflect on what could have been done better, but the purpose of this is not about demoralizing the present opposition, but about building a better future. Our past Soviet comrades maybe thought that was the best outcome given alternatives, but it’s counter factual to think X or Y decision would produce a better outcome. What I am saying is that trying to defend a past position as the right one, or trying to justify the past, after reflecting on our own past, is counter productive. The better position, in my opinion, is to recognize the past wrongs, as long as we are dealing with factual information, with all the nuance and historical context, not as the typical strawman argument often used by liberals.
Speaking in a more direct way, we can say is that the USSR displaced the Tatar population because they thought that was the best course of action given the circumstances, one of them was the extension of their collaboration with the Nazis. Even though the USSR would later recognize their own actions as a crime. In the future, we need to think on a better course of action if the same circumstance arise.
So, Crimean Tatars. It’s crazily hard to find something though with the amount of shitty genocide propaganda being churned out lately (though funnily enough the Ukrainian and pro-Ukrainian media seems to be strangely brief about Tatar issue, i wonder why <that was rhetoric question>). The population of Crimean Tatars were around 218,000, of which 35000 actively fought for nazis in both “self-defence” and antipartisan units. That’s very high mobilisation numbers, basically every man able to hold a rifle. Mentioned propaganda also very often claims that Tatars welcomed nazis as liberators at least at first, idk how much real and how much wishful thinking that is, but the numbers do support that.
why did they move them to behind their lines?
As you can see from above numbers the resettled 200000 people did included at least some of the armed collaborators. The answer for your question was that in Uzbekistan thery were of no significant danger and without contact with nazis. Btw, the Tatar population in Uzbekistan nearly tripled in few decades, which is not the argument for their resettlement, but it clearly shows that it wasn’t just “fuck off” expulsion or extermination.
The Tatars were not allowed to return, not even after the end of the war, not even after the secret speech by the Khruschevite clique, so I do think there was an element of collective punishment.
Mentioning Khrushchev, he literally given Crimea to Ukraine which probably explains why he didn’t allowed specifically Crimean Tatars to return, as he was Ukrainian nationalist (and failure to get rid of him absolutely is a mistake of Soviet leadership). Crimea also was and still is generally a very strategic region which might also be part of reason.
However I can accept the claim they didn’t think that displacement of a minority group, organized or otherwise, was a crime, since the definition only came later. In this point, liberals often think it’s ok to be anachronistic when they talk about communists, but never when it’s about their own Western regimes
Agree, also note that Rafael Lemkin who coined the term “genocide” was a zionist.
Please don’t take me by the average liberal.
I’ll stop when you stop trying to use liberal interpretation of terminology to explain events in a westernly manner, but judging from the above this did at least partially happen so ok.
Looking back at the USSR history we can reflect on what could have been done better, but the purpose of this is not about demoralizing the present opposition, but about building a better future.
Agree. Going into more context, we basically lost the battle of history. Too much hitlerite/western/zionist propaganda is now accepted as a fact. Even repotable scholars like Losurdo have absolutely baffling moments as starting the research from uncritically in single sentence accepting that Stalin bad. I argue it is important to at least give a context, and by doing that we might arrive at the point of actually questioning those narrations.
So you might for example find me defending Beria, who was considered a lost cause and scapegoat sacrificed to liberal propaganda. But lo and behold, Beria is actually kind of defendable, his main accusers that is Khruchchev and Montefiore are at this point proven to be smearing and projecting.but it’s counter factual to think X or Y decision would produce a better outcome. What I am saying is that trying to defend a past position as the right one, or trying to justify the past, after reflecting on our own past, is counter productive. The better position, in my opinion, is to recognize the past wrongs, as long as we are dealing with factual information, with all the nuance and historical context,
If we are to judge based on historical material conditions, we should also base the conclusion on them. In this case you can’t just quality the relocation of Tatars as bad and punishment since nothing bad happened afterwards while it could be much worse if it didn’t happened. Such is the paradox of avoided catastrophes, also some are more obvious and some less and this is closer to the second cathegory while the fist would be something like “if USSR didn’t do everything they could to stop nazis, hunreds of millions of people would die” - this is pretty obvious. Point is, i don’t see how the relocation of Tatars was crime, nor punishment, nor for certainty a mistake.
And sure, “do not move large amount of people without good reason” is a good lesson to get out of it but it shouldn’t be “ethnicities are completely untouchable for any reason, or else a zionist will call it a genocide”, which seems to be today “evolved” liberal narrative, completely dismissable for me since they did it more than anyone in history even after it “evolved” into the current shape.Speaking in a more direct way, we can say is that the USSR displaced the Tatar population because they thought that was the best course of action given the circumstances, one of them was the extension of their collaboration with the Nazis. Even though the USSR would later recognize their own actions as a crime.
Agree, but note that USSR and Russia after it recognised a lot of what former USSR leadership did as “crimes” because they had the clear motive of legitimising their coups.
In the future, we need to think on a better course of action if the same circumstance arise.
I think it would be hard for the same circumstance to arise. And if it did, again the question, what could even be done differently back then in the same situation? Every alternative i can think of would be worse.
Collective punishment is a war crime and fucked up, no matter who does it. It is especially awful when the punishment basically amounts to genocide.
what would you do?
Require proof of wrongdoing before applying punishment to individuals.
Otherwise you could also argue that it was fine to intern all US-Japanese because the Japanese living in Japan (which were the majority of Japanese people) were waging an aggressive war on the US, therefore that makes it OK to punish all Japanese. It’s the same argument.
Require proof of wrongdoing before applying punishment to individuals.
I am not well read on these events, but i do have some thoughts.
What if the material conditions don’t allow for that? What if there is no time for such a thing? What if it is absolutely crucial that this area does not fall into enemy hands or the entirety of your country gets eradicated?
Were any of the alternatives, if they exist at all, actually viable?
Collective punishment is a war crime and fucked up, no matter who does it. It is especially awful when the punishment basically amounts to genocide.
Imma go into this with the knowledge that i could be completely wrong, but this just sounds like empty moralism. Also, it is not clear to me that any of this was a “punishment” at all and actually rather a defusing of traitors that they knew existed because this group had already shown it, but don’t know who exactly it is. Instead of just killing everyone that they thought tipped too far into the potential enemy side, they just sent everyone somewhere where they couldn’t harm anyone.
Not sure if my thought process is missing something though
You raise some good points, thank you. Honestly I don’t have the mental resources to think about it now deeply, but boiling down the choice to “forced relocations and winning the war against nazis vs. no forced relocations but losing the war to nazis” I would choose the forced relocations too, even if out of harm minimization. However I can’t decide if this is a false dichotomy or not. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle.
It’s not even this that is the problem. We look at it in the retrospect and we still don’t really know. However at the height of biggest war ever things do look very different. It’s not even dichotomy, if you look at the time, even the most unjustified relocation, that is the Koreans, does not look that unnecessary considering that it was 1937, year before Japan really invaded USSR. And while Koreans were a nation opressed by Japan, collaboration there was also high (and during WW2 over 7 million Koreans were mobilised by Japan, though most of them were used as forced labour and not soldiers).
Also the definition of relocation as genocide is made up specifically to bash USSR since it equals expulsions with coordinated relocation, including the post war relocations which (again in retrospect) definitely saved eastern Europe from becoming Yugoslavia 2.0 just worse in 90’s.
Require proof of wrongdoing before applying punishment to individuals.
Bruh there was like 40000 troops in the Idel-ural Tatar SS unit alone, while i don’t think i can recall i single case of sabotage or attack made by US-Japanese in US.
You confuse Idel-Ural (which had absolutely incredible levels of desertion to partisans) and Crimean Tatar units. Those are two different things.
Yes, it was not obvious at first they mean specifically Crimean Tatars, which afaik did not had SS units, but had something around 35000 people in armed collaboration units (including 15000 partisan hunters) out of 218000 population which is still close to every man able to hold a gun.
Volga Tatars also didn’t have SS units, by the way. And it is fascinating, how different were Crimean Tatars’ and Volga Tatars’ relationships with Russia and USSR, despite being initially literally the same people. Really shows the power of material conditions.
Literal Blue MAGA
Democratic Socialism is like let’s do the same thing over and over again that we have been doing for the past 100 years but this time expect a different result.
Hey hey DSA, how many bombs did you drop today?
Hey hey DSA, how many children is a-ok?
