You're viewing a single thread.
I mean, Russia is fashy, but they are way less fashy than their enemies (The West).
edit: Also, this guy (Kings and Generals) is probably fash as well and is trying to make the West seem less fashy by exagerating Putin's fashyness.
Care to explain to me how russia is right extremist?
Modern day Russia is the successor of UdSSR, which was a left extremist government. Putin is reminiscing big russia - getting back the former territories of UdSSR...
Do you even know what you are talking about?
The USSR was a state controlled by the workers, while the Russian Federation is a state controlled by the russian capitalists.
Putin distorts the history of the USSR every time he speaks about it. He wants russians to think that Russia was "a glorious empire that almost beat the West", not a country led by the working class that gave hope to billions of people worldwide.
Go and read history books!
"Gave hope to billions of people", "led by the working class"? This is laughable! These statements would be the ideal state of communism. However, they could not be further from the truth for the UdSSR!
The name Stalin loosely translates to 'steel man', he was not born with this name, he took it on 1912. It was a good description: as a dictator he ruled over the UdSSR with a steel fist. Not the people ruled, one dictator after another.
If the UdSSR gave hope to so many people, why is there a need to end a protest of the working class (proletarians) with tanks? The massacre of Nowotscherkassk (1962) is comparable with the massacre at the Tienmen Square (1989). Both instances are a show of an extreme left dictatorship slaughtering their own people!
The left extreme and the right extreme can and did do horrible things. But calling the Russian fascist (right extremist) is a comicly bad misslabeling.
You do not know what fascism is. You do not know what communism is. Go read a book before you argue online, it is good for you.
I know that you did not read anything because of your mention of Tiananmen Square. You did not do any investigation on the subject nor did you read someone else's investigation into the subject. You just took the propaganda as truth and ran with it.
If you want to actually learn about communism, fascism, the USSR, China, Tiananmen Square, etc. you can just use the search function of lemmygrad. You'll find many resources to learn.
(or you can just continue helping the fascists by regurgitating propaganda, do whatever you want, I won't force you)
Ooh sorry Mr. Dictatorship-Appologia - or how most ppl on lemmy would call you: tankie. Good on you to suggest lemmygrad as source for neutral information on massacres by authoritarian left regimes...
Go and attend some history classes!
????
The sources are linked in lemmygrad, but they are from outside lemmygrad.
Also, there is no neutral information in the world, all information has parts omitted (for many possible reasons), has parts that may be distorted because of the bias of the primary sources, or has other biases that you must take into account when reading it.
If you only read information from one side you will only get the biases of that side, and won't be able to understand reality. Most principled communists who study history do not use only pro-communist sources, they actually use mostly anti-communist sources (because, guess what, most historians with resources to do research are american or western european, and literally can't publish pro-soviet or pro-chinese books in well-acclaimed presses) and then they filter out most of the biases (but not all, because that is literally impossible) by using primary sources or translations of primary sources, in case the primary sources aren't in a language they know.
I'm not saying you must read literal nazi books and take their word for it, for example. What I am saying is that if you want to research 19th century India, for example, you must read from at least most of the different perspectives, always questioning yourself about the sources like this:
- Which biases does this source have?
- How can these biases affect the information I am reading?
- Which other perspectives can I use to understand this information?
- Is this source reliable? (have they been caught lying?)
If you can't even do this, you really won't understand history.
Also, what is considered "neutral" at any point in time is what the ruling classes consider to be beneficial to them. If you could talk to the average white person of mid 19th century southern USA about slavery, they would tell you that news articles criticizing abolitionists and promoting slavery were "neutral". The same applies to current times.
Do you remember that scene from Futurama: "Thanks to denial, I'm immortal!"?
You sound like Fry here.
The UdSSR is the successor of Imperial Russia, which was a monarchy. That means the UdSSR was right extremist and a monarchy
You did not read the whole comment, did you? For Putin to have any claim on old UdSSR territory he needs to stay its spiritual successor too.
Same reason the CCP still clings to Mao - even if they are a sad mockery of communism.
Which ignores how Putin has made repeated references to the borders of the Russian Empire as justification. Take Putin's essay, On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, for example. He mentions the Russian Empire more than the USSR and talks of the "Ukrainization in the Ukrainian SSR " during the "1920's-1930's" and how "Ukrainization was often imposed on those who did not see themselves as Ukrainians". He couldn't make a claim to Ukraine based on the UdSSR if Ukraine was developed as a separate entity during the UdSSR's existence. Russia today is more comparable to Imperial Russia than to the UdSSR. Even then, the justification lies more in the existence of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, rather than historical claims.
The CPC, unfortunately, does not cling to Mao. Celebrations of his birthday have been largely scaled back, there are no large pictures of Mao at their congresses or on most of their propaganda, and he is rarely brought up in newspapers. Mao's little red book is largely seen as nostalgia. The CPC is big on "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era" instead of "Mao Zedong Thought".