∞🏳️‍⚧️Edie [it/its, she/her, fae/faer, love/loves, null/void, des/pair, none/use name, kitty]

I wondered what you wrote, unfortunately it seems like it was on a different account as there is zero things in the (hexbear) modlog for this username.

This is the problem with hexbear: they lure you in with things like gaming and then you start agreeing with them that none should go hungry or homeless and once you realize it, you’ve become a trans redfash tankie gobbunist (/s)

Has it not? Has it not caused the death of 1 million people in Indonesia? Has it not caused 7 million excess deaths due to “shock-therapy” in Russia alone? Has it not caused the brutality, violence and oppression of the “dictatorships” that the CIA installed in Latin America? Has it not caused countless famines? Has it not caused the economic ruin of Africa and Latin America?

What happens if you turn this around?

The precise terminology of the US’s political system is unimportant. What is important is that wherever the recipes of [Liberalism] have been tried, the result has been violence, brutality, oppression, famine, economic ruin.

This is all true of course. So what then? Do you also reject Liberalism?

There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror — that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

Taken from https://redsails.org/the-two-terrors/

There was a pretty decent EPUB at https://annas-archive.org/md5/5212d271f108a89b4dbd54b658b4fbda so I modified it very slightly, https://comlib.encryptionin.space/epubs/elementary-principles-of-philosophy/

A cool book I like is This Soviet World. It shows the Soviet Union as experienced by the author in the 1930s.

However if you care about Palestinians at all you should vote for the lesser of two evils

“If you care about the palestinians, you should vote for their genocide”.

Ok, that’s really good insight, so it boils down to France not respecting the 1935 treaty by refusing to declare Czechoslovakia as a victim of aggression?

No. So, there are two parts here: Romania allowing Soviet troops to pass through it and French and Soviet aid to Czechoslovakia.

I can’t find the part I was thinking about when I wrote “so the Soviet Union never came to help Czechoslovakia under the Pact”, and just I realized that there are actually two pacts.

The treaty mentioned is either the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance or the Czechoslovak-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance. Had France decided to fight for Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union would also have. But the French didn’t, and Czechoslovakia didn’t fight (and therefore didn’t call upon the Soviets to come to their aid), and so the Soviets didn’t.

In the case that fighting had broken out, Romania would allow Soviet troops to pass through their borders, if the League of Nations declared Czechoslovakia to be a “victim of aggression” (not France).

I assume they’re talking of how the Soviet Union was the only country to sell weapons to Republican Spain in their fight against fascism, even as the Nazis and Italian Fascists were militarily and economically helping the reactionaries in Spain, and how France and England didn’t do anything under the guise of “non-interventionism”.

Yes.

Admittedly, I feel like a sicko for saying that these subjects ‘interest’ me… but hey, somebody has to get their hands dirty when studying these tragedies.

And we salute you for your impressive work. Thank you.

It’s only fitting that the one doing the job most often would also be the one who can tolerate it the best.

Yea… I probably wouldn’t be able to do this, I couldn’t deal with it.

I’m not really sure how much more I can elaborate. I haven’t read the book—I read Flemmings book, see below, and found it to reference “Munich, Prologue to Tragedy”, so I went ahead and quoted it. Here is the full footnote which that part came from (with my own inserts in []):

France didn’t uphold their part of the 1935 Pact, so the Soviet Union never came to help Czechoslovakia under the Pact. And President [of Czechoslovakia] Benes didn’t call upon the Soviet Union “outside” of the Pact:

The rest of your comment is quite consistent with my own understanding of how things went down, which I got from Flemmings book.

but Romania and Poland denied pass to Soviet troops

I thought Romania did?

“Rumania had agreed to permit Russian troops to pass through her territory to the assistance of Czechoslovakia as soon as the League of Nations had pronounced Czechoslovakia to be a victim of aggression” - Munich, Prologue to Tragedy by John W. Wheeler-Bennet, p. 100

Hey Comrade, please use it/its.

Neither of these links show OBJECTION accepting a genocide.

Not to belittle your point, but calling Marx a socialist and Engles a capitalist is a kin as calling Jesus a Christian who’s disciples were Jews.

Cowbee didn’t do that. Cowbee said that Engles was a Capitalist, i.e. he had Capital, I am reading it as if you are mistaking it for Liberal? Cowbee also didn’t call Marx a socialist.

Nope.

Removed by mod

Yea I haven’t. But it changes none of what I have said.

As always, it ends like this.

This is rapidly devolving into bad-faith pedantry, but fine

No it isn’t.

Cowbee has asked multiple times for you to expand upon what you stated such that it can be engaged with. Much of what you have stated is vibes, it doesn’t contain any specifics. You feel that Marx would have been this way, you feel that china is authoritarian, none of it engages with reality, none of it contains any sources. If asking for this is bad-faith pedantry, then no discussion can be had.

No, his stance is that Communism, or as I believe Marx called it upper stage communism, has not been achieved. Lower stage communism‒or socialism‒has, as seen in China and the USSR. Both of these are/were communist, as in they are/were led by Marxist/communist parties working towards Communism.