Too many tankies. All of them saying people shouldn’t vote, while offering no solution and celebrating Russia as a good country.

  • FleetwoodLinux ( FleetwoodLinux@lemmy.zip ) 
    5·
    9 hours ago

    For instance, they often posit the Holodomor famine and genocide was justified.

    I think this is an unfair representation of their views. They think that there was a famine that was exasperated by Kulaks that were mad their farms were being collectivized, and that there was no intent on the USSR side to cause a famine, pointing to aid that was sent to the region or a letter from Stalin(?) being taken aback that the local admin hadn’t been communicating this earlier and demanded that large efforts to alleviate the (impending?) famine go into place immediately

    • katiecakes ( katiecakes@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 
      3·
      7 hours ago

      Ugh, I’m really not getting into this, and I disagree that I’m misrepresenting. I don’t care if it’s your views or you’re just stating tankie views, it’s incorrect regardless. This is my last reply.

      I will agree it’s contested whether it was a genocide or not, but I’m not aware of any respected viewpoint that puts the Kulaks at any kind of fault. Claiming they had a hand in it is bullshit propaganda.

      They were the target of a literal “liquidation campaign” at Stalin’s hand. Forcing a population that has owned and farmed land for generations to choose between collecitvised agriculture or death is monsterous.

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

      He killed entire generational populations, fathers, women, children, because they resisted communism. That’s monstrous. That’s why tankies are monstrous. And the result of his direct action was a famine that killed 5-8 million people.

      And to preempt a retort of “they were wealthy abuuuusers of common folk”:

      The definition of “kulak” was arbitrary and elastic; official criteria were vague, and in practice the label was applied to middle peasants (those of average means who were not considered exploiters), those who resisted collectivization, clergy, former tsarist officials, and others deemed politically unreliable. One 1930 (Soviet secret police) report found that only 55 percent of those classified as “kulaks” in one region were actually peasants who met even the nominal economic criteria.