JoeySteel [comrade/them]
- 3 Posts
- 10 Comments
1·4 years agoThe term “whataboutism” was literally invented by the US to deflect from the very real human rights abuses and atrocities the US commits worldwide both at home and abroad
In particular when the Soviets presented the document We Charge Genocide to the United Nations written by black Americans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Charge_Genocide
Giving it free reign to commit atrocities on a global scale, apartheid at home then whine about “whataboutism” anytime someone brings up their flagrant and numerous human rights abuses
The fact you would use “whataboutism” in a sentence unironically suggests youre still a shitlib
Edit: My bad :heart-sickle:
You don’t need to be.
I’ve been trying to popularise this amongst the left (actual left not synthetic left ie. those that demand as the lowest bar for “being left” the absolute and complete destruction of Western imperialism and Western capitalism. Not the synthetic left labour aristocrats that try to “both sides” shit when it comes to Russia/China/Iran/INSERT_WESTS_ENEMY_IT_WANTS_BALKANISE_AND_DESTORY_FOR_NEW_MARKETS)
Is that we should all be learning from conservatives and particularly Roger Stone
Who’s philosophy is Never defend, Attack, Attack, Attack
Some cuckold brings up the wildly discredited black book of communism “100 million dead under gommies” bring up the fact that British capitalism is responsible for 1.8 billion indian deaths alone so surely 100 million dead from every communist country in the 20th century is a million times better than 1 capitalist nation? If they change tact point out under the metrics of that defined “100 million dead” India achieves that every 20 years
Another cuckold brings up Xinjiang (a recent topic) point out that the US has starved 27 million Yeminis in a completely manmade famine which is over double the population of Xinjiang so why don’t they shut their fucking mouth and focus on a problem they can at least pressure their government about.
They bring up the falsified “slaves picking cotton in Xinjiang” (an obviously emotionally charged call to USsians with US particular history) point out how come they have no problem with slave children farming chocolate in the Ivory Coast , the fact that Burmese slaves are pumped full of amphetamines and tied to the prows of boats and pulled apart if they disobey orders or how come they have no problem with the child slaves of the Congo mining coltan for their mobile phones and laptops?
Bring up the fact that only 2 years the US army was bombing the Uyghurs in the East Turkestan Islamic Movement which the US designated as terrorists up until this year
You can adjust your honesty, disingenuous, vitriol and disgust at liberals and conservatives with depending on how dishonest and disingenuous they’re being but leftists should understand that even the “well meaning liberals” that at least pretend to be based in reality are in fact disingenuous, disgusting gaslighting pieces of shit and you should have no moral qualm about being as disingenuous, flexible with reality or gaslighting in return.
In for a penny out for a pound
These lib and conservative disgusting pieces of shit that now pretend to care about muslim lives in Xinjiang (definitely the human rights they care about and not the geopolitical rivalry opening up between West and China) remind them that they said nothing whilst the US sanctioned Iraq to the point half a million children died in Iraq and the US secretary of state went on TV to tell people “it was worth it” and that they have literally murdered millions of muslims since they began funding the head chopping jihadis in the 80s where Osama Bin Laden built up his networks in the Muhajadeen
You don’t owe these people anything and you should start viewing how you interact with them as a game for your entertainment
Ctrl + f’d for “cia” in that article
0 hits
Oh you Jacobin and your state-dept-socialism, never change
Succinct and under appreciated answer
Anti civ types can fuck all the way off
Their entire outlook is based on an ahististorical and colonial view of the world and (absolutely unsurprisingly) due to their anti civilisation and doomer outlook they end up repeating ecofascist nonsense
1·4 years agoThe Comintern abandoned the term in the interwar period essentially to beg for alliances with the Social-Democrats and calling them “Social-Fascists” was completely antagonistic to Soviet foreign policy during that period
And what happened? Did the Social-Democrats force their governments to ally with the Soviets?
No, we saw Chamberlain collude with Hitler to try and turn the Nazi army east, we saw Daladier do the exact same.
France, under so-called “Socialist” Daladier, ratfucked Czechoslovakia by not activating the defence treaty that France and the Soviet Union had signed. (France and USSR signed a treaty with Czechoslovakia to come to her defence. However due to the anticommunism of the period the Czech President said that the Soviet Union could only defend Czechoslovakia if France came first to her defence. The reason he did this was because he suspected if only the Soviets came to his defence the capitalist pigs in France/UK would ally with the fascists and display this as “Communist aggression” and wage war on the Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union.) Instead France allowed Czechoslovakia to be carved up because they thought they were playing 5d chess to get Hitler to go east into the Soviet Union.
Social democratic parties all over Europe collaborated with Hitler.
Take Hungary, Hungarys Succdem party was never even banned under Hitlerite occupation so instep with fascism they were
Let’s not beat about the bush - It was correct Soviet foreign policy once the Nazis had risen in 1933 to stop calling SuccDems Social-Fascists but doesn’t make it any less true
This is all ironic of course on a page where we are discussing a Social-Democrat that supports fascism “over there”.
“Firstly, it is not true that fascism is only the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that “pacifism” signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, “pacifism” is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront.”
J. V. STALIN, from , “Concerning the International Situation,” 1924.
The masked opportunists, the Kautskyites, are much more harmful and dangerous to the labour movement, because they hide their advocacy of alliance with the former under a cloak of plausible, pseudo-“Marxist” catchwords and pacifist slogans.
It might be attributed, for example, to the fear that a revolution might break out if the non-aggressive states were to go to war and the war were to assume world – wide proportions. The bourgeois politicians know, of course, that the first imperialist world war led to the victory of the revolution in one of the largest countries. They are afraid that the second imperialist world war may also lead to the victory of the revolution in one or several countries. But at present this is not the sole or even the chief reason. The chief reason is that the majority of the non-aggressive countries, particularly England and France, have rejected the policy of collective security, the policy of collective resistance to the aggressors, and have taken up a position of nonintervention, a position of “neutrality.” Formally speaking, the policy of non-intervention might be defined as follows: “Let each country defend itself from the aggressors as it likes and as best it can. That is not our affair. We shall trade both with the aggressors and with their victims.” But actually speaking, the policy of non-intervention means conniving at aggression, giving free rein to war, and, consequently, transforming the war into a world war. The policy of non-intervention reveals an eagerness, a desire, not to hinder the aggressors in their nefarious work: not to hinder Japan, say, from embroiling herself in a war with China, or, better still, with the Soviet Union: to allow all the belligerents to sink deeply into the mire of war, to encourage them surreptitiously in this, to allow them to weaken and exhaust one another; and then, when they have become weak enough, to appear on the scene with fresh strength, to appear, of course, “in the interests of peace,” and to dictate conditions to the enfeebled belligerents. Cheap and easy!" -Comrade Stalin, Report on the Work Of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the CPSUB, March 1939So you can see Stalin (and the Soviets) didn’t trust the fascists or the capitalists one whit. Also read the entire report as it gives a much fuller picture and as you can see I’ve already separated this into 3 different posts due to character limit
Further:
"The foreign policy of the Soviet Union is clear and explicit. We stand for peace and the strengthening of business relations with all countries. That is our position; and we shall adhere to this position as long as these countries maintain like relations with the Soviet Union, and as long as they make no attempt to trespass on the interests of our country. We stand for peaceful, close and friendly relations with all the neighbouring countries which have common frontiers with the U.S.S.R. That is our position; and we shall adhere to this position as long as these countries maintain like relations with the Soviet Union, and as long as they make no attempt to trespass, directly or indirectly, on the integrity and inviolability of the frontiers of the Soviet state. We stand for the support of nations which are the victims of aggression and are fighting for the independence of their country. We are not afraid of the threats of aggressors, and are ready to deal two blows for every blow delivered by instigators of war who attempt to violate the Soviet borders. (Ibid)" Further: "The tasks of the Party in the sphere of foreign policy are: To continue the policy of peace and of strengthening business relations with all countries; To be cautious and not allow our country to be drawn into conflicts by warmongers who are accustomed to have others pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them; To strengthen the might of our Red Army and Red Navy to the utmost; To strengthen the international bonds of friendship with the working people of all countries, who are interested in peace and friendship among nations. (ibid)"But this was in March 1939 and the Molotov Pact was signed in August
So what then, did Molotov say in August 31, 1939:
"What have the negotiations with Great Britain and France shown? The Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations have shown that the position of Great Britain and France is marked by glaring contradictions throughout. Judge for yourselves. On the one hand, Great Britain and France demanded that the U.S.S.R. should give military assistance to Poland in case of aggression. The U.S.S.R., as you know, was willing to meet this demand provided she herself received like assistance from Great Britain and France. On the other hand, Great Britain and France brought Poland on to the scene, who resolutely declined military assistance on the part of the U.S.S.R. Just try to reach an agreement regarding mutual assistance under such circumstances, when assistance on the part of the U.S.S.R. is declared beforehand to be superfluous and obtrusive. Further: on the one hand, Great Britain and France offered to guarantee the Soviet Union military assistance against aggression in return for like assistance on the part of the U.S.S.R. On the other hand, they hedged round their assistance with such provisos regarding indirect aggression as were calculated to convert this assistance into a fiction and to provide them with a formal legal excuse for evading the rendering of assistance and for leaving the U.S.S.R. isolated in face of an aggressor. Just try to distinguish between such a “pact of mutual assistance” and a pact of more or less camouflaged chicanery. (Amusement.) Further: on the one hand, Great Britain and France stressed the importance and gravity of the negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance and demanded that the U.S.S.R. should treat the matter seriously and settle all questions relating to the pact without delay. On the other hand, they themselves displayed extreme dilatoriness and treated the negotiations very lightly, entrusting them to minor individuals who were not invested with adequate powers. It is enough to mention that the British and French military missions came to Moscow without any definite powers and without the right to conclude any kind of military convention. (Animation.)More, the British military mission arrived in Moscow without any mandate at all (loud laughter), and it was only on the demand of our military mission that, on the very eve of the breakdown of the negotiations, they presented written credentials. But even these credentials were of the vaguest kind, that is, credentials that were not up to par. Just try to distinguish between this light-minded attitude towards the negotiations on the part of Great Britain and France and a frivolous make-believe at negotiations designed to discredit the whole business. Such were the intrinsic contradictions in the attitude of Great Britain and France towards the negotiations with the U.S.S.R. which led to their breakdown. What is the root of these contradictions in the position of Great Britain and France? In a few words, it can be put as follows. On the one hand, the British and French governments fear aggression, and for that reason would like to have a pact of mutual assistance with the Soviet Union, inasmuch as it would strengthen them, Great Britain and France. But, on the other hand, the British and French governments are afraid that the conclusion of a real pact of mutual assistance with the U.S.S.R. may strengthen our country, the Soviet Union, which, it appears, does not answer their purpose. It must be admitted that these fears of theirs outweighed other considerations. It is only in this light that we can understand the position of Poland, who is acting on the instructions of Great Britain and France. I shall now pass to the Soviet-German pact of non- aggression. The decision to conclude a pact of non-aggression between the U.S.S.R. and Germany was adopted after the military negotiations with France and Great Britain had reached an impasse owing to the insurmountable differences I have mentioned. As the negotiations had shown that the conclusion of a pact of mutual assistance was not to be expected, we could not but explore other possibilities of ensuring peace and averting the danger of a war between Germany and the U.S.S.R. If the British and French governments refused to reckon with this, that is their lookout. It is our duty to think of the interests of the Soviet people, the interests of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. (Prolonged applause.) All the more since we are firmly convinced that the interests of the U.S.S.R. coincide with the fundamental interests of the peoples of other countries. (Applause.) But that is only one side of the matter. Something else had to happen besides this before a Soviet- German pact of non-aggression could come into existence. It was necessary that the foreign policy of Germany should take a turn towards friendly relations with the Soviet Union. Only when this second condition was fulfilled, only when it became clear that the German government desired to change its foreign policy and secure an improvement of relations with the U.S.S.R., was the basis found for the conclusion of a Soviet- German pact of non-aggression." Molotov’s Statement in the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. on the Ratification of the Soviet-German Pact of Non-AggressionAnd further:
- Stop repeating Western Cold War lies and propaganda
The British and French were trying to goad Germany and Russia into war.
The Soviets were the last country in europe to sign a pact with the Nazis and here’s a handy infographic of the countries that did sign.
https://pics.onsizzle.com/what-countries-signed-contracts-with-hitler-and-when-1933-uk-1601874.png
The Soviets spent over a year trying to sign an anti Nazi alliance with the British and the French.
The British confirmed all of this in 2009 when the 70 year limit ran out and their archive was opened and the full scale of what Stalin offered the Brits and French was basically enough to ensure WW2 never happened
The British and French however sent delegates with no authority to sign an alliance. The polish hated the Soviets because they were fascists under Pilzudski and were hoping for an alliance with Hitler.
Poland also realised that if they allowed the Soviets onto Polish territory the Soviets would unilaterally annexe the land the Polish had stolen from the Soviet Union in the 1918-1920 invasion of the USSR where Poland annexed land from Belarus, Lithuania (they stole Villinus the capital of Lithuania) and Ukraine.
The Polish then enacted a forced “Polandisation” of the citizens living there. Suppressing native languages and treating Belarussians/Lits and Ukrainians as 2nd class peoples.
Bear in mind this is one year after they signed the Munich agreement which gave Hitler Czechoslovakia.
"Papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance. The new documents, copies of which have been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, show the vast numbers of infantry, artillery and airborne forces which Stalin’s generals said could be dispatched, if Polish objections to the Red Army crossing its territory could first be overcome. But the British and French side - briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals - did not respond to the Soviet offer, made on August 15, 1939. Instead, Stalin turned to Germany, signing the notorious non-aggression treaty with Hitler barely a week later. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after the foreign secretaries of the two countries, came on August 23 - just a week before Nazi Germany attacked Poland, thereby sparking the outbreak of the war. But it would never have happened if Stalin’s offer of a western alliance had been accepted, according to retired Russian foreign intelligence service Major General Lev Sotskov, who sorted the 700 pages of declassified documents. "This was the final chance to slay the wolf, even after [British Conservative prime minister Neville] Chamberlain and the French had given up Czechoslovakia to German aggression the previous year in the Munich Agreement," said Gen Sotskov, 75. The Soviet offer - made by war minister Marshall Klementi Voroshilov and Red Army chief of general staff Boris Shaposhnikov - would have put up to 120 infantry divisions (each with some 19,000 troops), 16 cavalry divisions, 5,000 heavy artillery pieces, 9,500 tanks and up to 5,500 fighter aircraft and bombers on Germany’s borders in the event of war in the west, declassified minutes of the meeting show. But Admiral Sir Reginald Drax, who lead the British delegation, told his Soviet counterparts that he authorised only to talk, not to make deals. *“Had the British, French and their European ally Poland, taken this offer seriously then together we could have put some 300 or more divisions into the field on two fronts against Germany - double the number Hitler had at the time,” said Gen Sotskov, who joined the Soviet intelligence service in 1956. “This was a chance to save the world or at least stop the wolf in its tracks.” *"And yes, there were talks to join the axis! Germany at this point was in war with Britain and France and the Soviets needed another year and would still suffer horrendous losses (27 million dead)
So what was the result of those axis talks? (Besides the end point which was Germany invading the Soviet Union but let’s continue down the fantasy path that the Soviets trusted fucking Hitler and they were going seriously joining any German axis) .
“Hitler, however, saw the Soviet territorial ambitions in the Balkans as a challenge to German interests and saw its plan as effectively making Bulgaria into an adjunct of the Axis pact. On several occasions, Molotov asked German officials for their response to Moscow’s counterproposals, but Germany never answered them. Germany’s refusal to respond to the counterproposal worsened relations between the countries. Regarding the counterproposal, Hitler remarked to his top military chiefs that Stalin “demands more and more”, “he’s a cold-blooded blackmailer” and that “a German victory has become unbearable for Russia” so that “she must be brought to her knees as soon as possible.””**-Ericson, Edward E. (1999), Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933–1941,
Right so the axis talks ended with Hitler so pissed off at the Soviet Union Hitler assessed
Stalin was a “cold blooded blackmailer” and that he “demands more and more” “A German victory is unbearable for russia” that the Soviets were trying to have Germany “brought to her knees as soon as possible”And Hitler killing the talks.
We’ve established thus far that the Soviets prioritised a British-French and polish anti nazi alliance. That the British, Poles and French were rat bastards that saw communism as a greater evil than fascism and were hoping for the Germans and Russians to kill each other.
At this point though I’ve only quoted bourgeois sources so let’s see what the Soviets said about all this .
"After the first imperialist war the victor states, primarily Britain, France and the United States, had set up a new regime in the relations between countries, the post-war regime of peace. The main props of this regime were the Nine-Power Pact in the Far East, and the Versailles Treaty and a number of other treaties in Europe. The League of Nations was set up to regulate relations between countries within the framework of this regime, on the basis of a united front of states, of collective defence of the security of states. However, three aggressive states, and the new imperialist war launched by them, have upset the entire system of this post-war peace regime. Japan tore up the Nine-Power Pact, and Germany and Italy the Versailles Treaty. In order to have their hands free, these three states withdrew from the League of Nations.** The new imperialist war became a fact. It is not so easy in our day to suddenly break loose and plunge straight into war without regard for treaties of any kind or for public opinion. Bourgeois politicians know this very well. So do the fascist rulers. That is why the fascist rulers decided, before plunging into war, to frame public opinion to suit their ends, that is, to mislead it, to deceive it. A military bloc of Germany and Italy against the interests of England and France in Europe? Bless us, do you call that a bloc? “We” have no military bloc. All “we” have is an innocuous “Berlin-Rome axis”; that is, just a geometrical equation for an axis. (Laughter.) A military bloc of Germany, Italy and Japan against the interests of the United States, Great Britain and France in the Far East? Nothing of the kind. “We” have no military bloc. All “we” have is an innocuous “Berlin-Rome-Tokyo triangle”; that is, a slight penchant for geometry. (General laughter.) A war against the interests of England, France, the United States? Nonsense! “We” are waging war on the Comintern, not on these states. If you don’t believe it, read the “anti-Comintern pact” concluded between Italy, Germany and Japan. That is how Messieurs the aggressors thought of framing public opinion, although it was not hard to see how preposterous this whole clumsy game of camouflage was; for it is ridiculous to look for Comintern “hotbeds” in the deserts of Mongolia, in the mountains of Abyssinia, or in the wilds of Spanish Morocco. (Laughter.) But war is inexorable. It cannot be hidden under any guise. For no “axes,” “triangles” or “anti-Comintern pacts” can hide the fact that in this period Japan has seized a vast stretch of territory in China, that Italy has seized Abyssinia, that Germany has seized Austria and the Sudeten region, that Germany and Italy together have seized Spain – and all this in defiance of the interests of the non-aggressive states. The war remains a war; the military bloc of aggressors remains a military bloc; and the aggressors remain aggressors. **It is a distinguishing feature of the new imperialist war that it has not yet become universal, a world war. The war is being waged by aggressor states, who in every way infringe upon the interests of the non-aggressive states, primarily England, France and the U.S.A., while the latter draw back and retreat, making concession after concession to the aggressors. Thus we are witnessing an open redivision of the world and spheres of influence at the expense of the non-aggressive states, without the least attempt at resistance, and even with a certain amount of connivance, on the part of the latter.** Incredible, but true. To what are we to attribute this one-sided and strange character of the new imperialist war?
This article is so bad I almost threw up, thanks a lot op
None of this is news
Maos turn to Nixon and the subsequent shitty foreign policy of China until 1979 (China hasn’t been to war since 1979) can basically be described as funding and arming whoever was anti-soviet
There’s a reason Maoist groups were heavily infiltrated and funded by the CIA throughout the 70s and 80s (due to their Anti Soviet stance)
Chinas foreign policy since Maos turn to Nixon is essentially “we’ll wait, but we must avoid war at all costs”.
So Chinas foreign policy has been one of not putting their head above the parapet.
When US imperialists wanted to destroy Yugoslavia China was helping the Yugoslavs and got their embassy bombed for that privilege. They then meekly nodded to everything US imperialism wanted even abstaining as the imperialist bastards destroyed Libya in 2011
None of this is news. Mao (erroneously in my opinion) came to the conclusion they would have to hug tightly to the USA until they had far surpassed the USA and do it in such a way that the imperialists could not invade China like they wanted to in 1950 in the Korean war (the plan then was to strike up through Korea, into China then onto Soviet Union but they got bogged down in Korea).
The Chinese have then stepped back into essentially full capitalist relations to avoid war with USA and they have only avoided war with USA because of proletarian heros like Gordon Chang running a psyop on USA by telling them China will collapse every year since 1999 (and the US press believing it). They’ve done this strategically and pragmatically to bind the world economy to China, to avoid a capitalist coalition against it whilst also obtaining as much technology as possible to overtake them. Regardless of their previous awful foreign policy we are where we are and China is moving rapidly into US imperialisms cross hairs. They are becoming Anti-Imperialist by A) force of necessity now US has cross hairs on them and B) by undercutting Western imperialism with the Belt and Road initiative and loads to 3rd world at much better rates than IMF or World Bank as well as their debt forgiveness.
There is something so rat like when opportunists and distorters of Marxism (and the analysis on Imperialism) try to wrap their words in Marxist language due to the theoretical victory of Marxism
In the era of Class Society humans organise into States and class war inevitably becomes a war between States. Does this writer think some Venezuelan can survive and live without being murdered by (US funded) far right militia squads without the utilisation of the State to protect them? Does the writer think the Koreans in DPRK can disband their state and “focus on class war” to “confront imperialism” without organising themselves into a highly organised and disciplined State? When USA practices invading DPRK every year?
Absolute trash and how does one fight the “entire capitalist system” without first settling accounts with your local bourgeoisie ie. your State
If humans outside the imperial core wish to survive and not have their populations turned over into a nightmare like The Congo or any number of African States that are completely subservient to international capital and thus have to have their children mining coltan under the threat of child soldiers they must organise into States and States therefore become the principle battleground of imperialism.
If someone here hadn’t already pointed out that Lausan came out the fascist/far right Hong Kong protests I would’ve told you Lausan is CIA (which they are)
From Lausan.hk About Page
Tip for anyone here: any slipper revolution , any velvet revolution, orange revolution , sunflower revolution and indeed any umbrella revolution is not a revolution. It’s the CIA
Anytime some “pro democracy” group tries to popularise an inanimate object as a symbol of ‘revolution’.
It’s CIA.
Lausan is CIA
https://amp.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3091438/us-has-been-exposed-funding-last-years-hong-kong-protests