![Red_Scare [he/him]](https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/99ba5d86-bb50-4296-b405-3267b413b844.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
You're all just Putinists and authcoms if you don't like CIA social movements!
Little known fact, it also seems to imply no actual literal murdering people
American leftists are more principled
I'm sorry, I don't mean to diss Christianity as such! I do think Bible itself offers little to Marxists but there's more to Christian history and tradition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker-priest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Hagerty
I'll be honest, I never looked deeper into this. I was a militant atheist for most of my life and I'm only starting to broaden my horizons, hence my harsh initial reply for which I apologise. Old habits die hard I guess. Our enemy is capital, not religion.
Bible is extremely self contradictory, you can fish out quotes to support nearly anything, as proven by history over and over: https://philb61.github.io/
What Bible simply does not offer however, is a direct condemnation of slavery which would only take one short passage. There's nothing to counterbalance the quote I pasted above, or the quote from the old Testament discussed here: https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/
Given how self contradictory the Bible is, support for slavery is one of the very few points you can get from it with any level of certainty. You can do some mental gymnastics and infer a condemnation of slavery from general statements like "setting the oppressed free", but then you can make pretty much any other concievable point by selecting the passages that can be interpreted to support your point, and ignoring the passages where your point is directly and explicitly refuted.
No idea why you're being downvoted comrade.
New Testament was written in the time of widespread slavery and this is what it had to offer:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ, not with a slavery performed merely for looks, to please people, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the soul. Render service with enthusiasm, as for the Lord and not for humans, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are enslaved or free.
Pretty sure if capitalism existed at that time, it would have the same advice to give wage slaves.
We have confirmation: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g704g051go
I can hardly believe how different UK and the world would've been if Anglos elected him instead of Bojo the clown. Alas, hating immigrants was more important.
Copying my comment from another thread: when I need to discuss "change through bourgeois electoralism" with libs I love sharing this interview:
It's so perfect; it's a reputable Western newspaper so you can share it in almost any setting, just preface it for plausible deniability with something like: "It's a hilarious read, one of the greatest modern liberal intellectuals debates a genocidal maniac frothing at the mouth!"
Libs love the idea and usually swallow the bait expecting funzies, they looooove them a stuck-up Brit "speaking truth to power" and handing out "hitchslaps".
And then Stalin absolutely demolishes Wells and it really fucks with their world. Wells says FDR's New Deal will bring about socialism in the USA and Stalin's like nah cause the economy is in the hands of capitalists so at most you will get some concessions which capitalists will keep fighting to revert. Stalin's arguments are so clear and concise, and his predictions are so plainly correct, while Wells is just being confidently wrong and terribly smug about it.
I had some success with it too, including one well-meaning lib literally telling me the next day, "Stalin was right" which are the three words I would not expect a lib utter under any circumstances.
Yeah I don't think "Ukrainians will never forgive the Red Army for liberating them from Nazis" meant "Ukrainian government", sorry. More likely, this person thinks Ukraine was on the side of Nazis in WW2 which I'm seeing quite a lot too (not looking for examples though, sorry)
I've seen countless examples of this and won't waste time looking now, but if you want I can start tagging you and @GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml whenever I notice those?
I don't know how to help you if you've never noticed this behaviour around here.
Decades of meddling, coup attemps, dirty money, foreign NGOs, relentless propaganda campaigns, building "occupation museums" to brainwash the young about their past... And when the country is finally beaten into submission all you armchair communists will start spewing "all Georgians are Nazis" within a week, while the profits your countries reap from their suffering are trickling down to you just enough to keep you docile. Can't fucking wait to see this again.
You are completely misinformed.
First of all "kulaks" were not working peasants who lived self-sufficiently off farming their land and raising their livestock, you are thinking of "serednyaks", the class below kulaks in the 4-tier rural class system of Imperial Russia. Kulaks were rural loan sharks and land owners who did not work but rather lived off extortionate interest rates from loans to "serednyaks" and from exploiting the labour of "bednyaks" (literally "the poor") and, mainly, the seasonal labour of "batraks" who were the class below "the poor" - many of them homeless, traveling from village to village and working quite literally for a bit of food and a place to sleep in the barn.
If you intend to keep talking publically about kulaks, do look into those classes, look up who batraks were and what kind of life they lead before the revolution, the mortality, the diseases, how many they were compared to the number of kulaks. Find out what dekulakisation brought not only for kulaks, but also for that huge number of serednyaks, bednyaks, and batraks they exploited. Find out what dekulakisation did to overall child mortality, child hight, life expectancy, and so on.
Second, kulaks were not murdered, they were eliminated as an economic class by removing the relataionship of exploitation. Their lands were taken and given to the people, and the ones who resisted were deported with their families.
You're from Yugoslavia of all places, you frequent a communist space, and you believe much of Eastern Europe is a Nazi hellhole because that's just how Eastern Europeans are, abnormal?
Who's normal? Yank leftists voting for a guy who bombed Yugoslavia cause "harm reduction"?
A yank started the whole " why can't Ukraine just be normal" thing, I can tell cause only a yank would refer to his homeland simply as "our country" without feeling the need to clarify which fucking country.
How did it get there?
Who kept financing far right and nationalist movements, first amongst émigrés and then as soon as the iron curtain fell amongst soviet people?
Who made up all the anti-communist propaganda, turned natural disasters into genocides, financed "education" programs, "museums" like the occupation museum on Tbilisi, etc?
Who enforced neoliberal policies, shock therapy, etc?
Soviet people voted against dissolution of the USSR but comprador politicians ignored that, then Russian people were going to elect Zyuganov but US soft-couped him and stole the election for Yeltsin.
Who fucking financed Maidan and organised a coup? There's literally a recording of Nuland deciding which politician gets what position in Ukrainian govt.
Then Ukrainian people elected Zelensky to make a deal with Russia which he tried to do, what happened to that?
And then """"leftist"""" yanks will bumble around asking "why can't those Eastern Europeans just be normal like the rest of the world?
Fuck right off, all of you.
Look up the Soviet block and the cold war
We fucking did do that and you people had to go on a protracted war against us. Fuck off.
Thank for correcting bigbigchungus! I thought it's honey-knower my whole life
Capital is great at co-opting genuine social movements. It doesn't mean the grievances are not valid or that protesters are all compradors, it's just one of the way imperialist domination works.
But it does mean movements have to be explicitly anti-capitalist, antifascist and anti imperialist to have a chance at resisting being co-opted.
From Kronstadt to 21st century color revolutions, once you start taking Western capitalist money, accepting "support" from NED-adjacent orgs, or tolerating fascists because "they're fighting our common enemy", you lost control of the movement and it became the tool for CIA and the like.