- Mark Tauger documents it https://newcoldwar.org/archive-of-writings-of-professor-mark-tauger-on-the-famine-scourges-of-the-early-years-of-the-soviet-union/
- This is the Polish invasion of the USSR in the early 1920s. Look at the parts of Ukraine and Belorussia they took, linguistic maps of that area, and compare to the regions taken back by the USSR under the MR pact. As for the brutality of the regime it’s not well covered in English language history, mostly it’s covered in polish, Ukrainian, and Russian language sources. I know Timothy Snyder covers it in bloodlands but he’s so closely aligned with the modern Ukrainian nationalist movement that I don’t like to recommend him. It should be easy enough to find some English language history of the militaristic polish regime of the 1930s.
FrogFractions
joined 1 year ago
No that’s not my point.
My point is that the process used in China is a Democratic one which features high procedural integrity not just good outcomes but also very directly in the procedural sense.
People VOTE for their POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES in China in ELECTIONS.
Can I be more clear?
Xi isn’t directly elected, and I think westerners fixate on this, but neither is the British Prime Minister or German Chancellor. But just as the foundation of western democracy is elected representatives to parliament the foundation of Chinese democracy is elected representatives to congresses.
When I say China is a democracy I am not talking about vibes. I mean PEOPLE VOTE IN ELECTIONS AND THOSE ELECTIONS DETERMINE PUBLIC POLICY.
Goddamn.
Like, sure the exact process and the degree of integrity varies by province and city since the devolved model of power means there are in fact variety of models in China and so it’s difficult to make grand sweeping statements but Chinese democracy is a real thing not just some vibes based sentiment or some “according my obscure Marxist theory” thing. I am talking about the very obvious and surface level procedural sense, casting a ballot into a box, as well as the deeper sense.
The foundation of Chinese democracy is the people’s congresses. These are elected by the people. These then elect the next higher level in a tiered system right to the top. It becomes indirect at the higher levels but the system also tends to decentralize power since the bottom rung actually controls the top and so tends to vote in a manner that devolves power instead of centralizing it, which is profoundly democratic and responsive.
It is a different model than what we have in the west but it is not less Democratic in the procedural sense. It’s not just vibes. The people elect their representatives and their representatives elect actual government.
It’s not even very different anyway, compared to say the Westminster system where the people elect parliament and parliament then elect the executive. It’s just scaled by another tier or two.
Your anecdote is noted but what your anecdote claims is flatly contradicted by data.
I agree it is not a liberal democracy but I don’t think we mean the same thing by that.
Western liberal democracy is to serve the interests of capital and evidently that’s what it does.
Socialist democracy is to serve the interests of the people and according to poll after poll of Chinese people that’s what it is doing.
In terms of the machinery of democracy the data also is in high accordance with the claim that it features a high degree of integrity, data points I outlined above.
It’s true the CPC controls it’s membership but
(1) fully a third of elected officials are independent and many from the other parties for special interests
and (2) within the CPC faction system we see voices in the CPC ranging from Maoists to neoliberals so it’s not performing this function of limiting political voice as you claim but are you saying the 2-party system of the west doesn’t feature the same ideological limits? And in fact we see a much narrower political discourse in the west so clearly the limits imposed by the western liberal democracy 2-party system is actually performing that filter function aggressively than the CPC does,
and (3) a very large fraction of the population are members whereas in the west such a tiny fraction of the population are direct participants in democracy so even on the topic of membership of the CPC the Chinese model features far more inclusion than you see in the west.
The role of decentralizing power to the local and provincial levels is also very important in this discussion since it’s such a large and populous country. Like I’d agree at the national level the Will of the people is somewhat indirect since there is a hierarchical system where you vote at level A and level A elects level B so at the top of this pyramid Democratic voice is indirect but the politics that matters are mostly at level A and the consensus model of politics means that the indirect influence upon the top of the hierarchy is still much more meaningful than the pretense of the 2-party system where Teo neoliberal parties fight culture wars in lieu of politics.
It’s not a perfect democracy but it’s actually a very good one.
I think (2) is an important point by the way, when you wring your hands about the potential for CPC membership to limit political diversity you need to square that with the reality that you see much more political diversity within their system than the western liberal model even just within the CPC and ignoring the important role of elected independents.
No that’s some kind of internalized orientalism. When you say you’re Chinese do you perhaps mean an ethnically Chinese person from Taiwan?
When I say China is Democratic I am referring to
- their elections are not corrupt and reflect the votes of the communities
- their elected officials have a high rate of turnover when compared to the west demonstrating the people are choosing and importantly changing their minds about who they want in power. Compare to the US where 90% of elections are not competitive and so it’s the political patronage network of the Dems or GOP that decide 90% of elections, before we even discuss how meaningful a choice the 2-party system offers
- fully a third of elected officials are independents, and the faction system within the CPC plays the same function as party politics within the west
- the faction system within the CPC is actually more diverse than the party system in the west with factions ranging from die hard Maoists to neoliberals, so to say it’s a one-party state is superficial since factions play the same function within the CPC and to say the 2-party system of almost all of the west presents political diversity is laughable since in the west the political spectrum is one neoliberal party that is homophobic and another neoliberal party that isn’t homophobic; this accurately paints the picture of political diversity in the west which is fucking nothing compared to the diversity of political voices in China
- their elected officials are mostly not lifelong politicians such as in the west meaning in the west we really have a permanent oligarchy (such as Biden who has been part of the ruling oligarchy long enough that he voted against desegregation) whereas in China they elect people who are from the people
- that is to say, Chinese democracy is mostly of the people with some who then climb higher whereas western democracy is a set of lifelong permanent appointments and a remarkably high proportion of them are the children of lifelong politicians
- Chinese democracy is mostly devolved and local, eg city and provincial politics are what matters most, whereas western democracy is mostly centralized
- Chinese people report in poll after poll they see that their government is responsive to their will whereas westerners report the opposite
- Chinese people report a very high level of confidence in the integrity of their democratic processes and representatives when westerners report the opposite
When I say China is a democracy I mean it in the full sense of it, not some orientalized “China is very very mysterious and sinister” sense of it.
It’s not a perfect democracy at all and I won’t make that claim but it’s a very good one and it far outstrips the west in terms of being actually representative of the people in terms of voting patterns resulting in changes of public policy and in terms of diversity of political voices and in terms of actual integrity.
Not some orientalized “benevolent dictator” bullshit but that the people ELECT their leaders for the local politics that matter most and then those local politics elect the national body leading to a system of politics that represents the will of the people based on their right to vote.
Democracy.
The Waffen SS Ukrainian division was mostly destroyed but about 8,000 were rescued by the UK and many were resettled in Canada.
Anti-semitism in Canada was intense. Eg only 5,000 Jews were given asylum during the entire Hitler and post-WW2 era so being a Waffen SS Ukrainian was about as good as being a Holocaust survivor or a Jewish person escaping Hitler.
During an inquiry into this in the 80s, one historian wrote that showing an SS tattoo was a great way to demonstrate you were an anti-communist and therefore a valuable recruit. The plan was to cultivate a “5th column” of Eastern European nationalists as a means of undermining the USSR, ethnic-nationalism being a useful way to encourage separatism.
In fact Bandera back in the late 1920s was himself patronized by the militaristic and expansionistic interwar Polish government that wanted to expand into Ukraine and Belorussia. It’s this nationalist separatist network that the Nazis capitalized upon and following their defeat the Canadians and UK were simply picking up that torch.
There are many threads to this story.
To touch on them briefly:
- Bandera and his Polish-backed forces led a campaign of slaughtering livestock and horses and burning grain in the early 1930s which historian Mark Tauger identifies as one of the major human-based causes of the famine in the 1930s, in particular the devastation of the horse herds which were essential for transport and animal labor. Bandera did this with the intention of worsening the famine in order to incite resistance against the USSR.
- The expansionist Polish state of the early 1920s had a kind of lebensraum type ideology and saw Belorussia and Ukraine as part of a Greater Poland, so in the early 1920s they waged a war of aggression against the USSR which was in a state of weakness due to the civil war to seize large parts of Belorussia and Ukraine. They then reduced the local population to slave-like serfdom and imposed a regime of terror with dozens of daily public executions to “fight bandits” and imposed harsh Polonization measures such as forcing the use of Polish instead of local languages and only providing education to Polish speakers.
- Those are the territories that Stalin took under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact so whenever someone throws that in your face to claim a history of russian aggression against Poland be aware that the territory taken by Stalin was not Poland but was Ukraine and Belorussia. None of the areas taken here were polish in the ethnic or linguistic sense (with the small exception of Lvov which is still part of Ukraine today) so the MR pact being presented as Russian aggression intentionally obscures Polish revanchism for the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth and seeks to deny the fascist militaristic and expansionistic state that Poland was in the 1930s.
- It was the brutal mistreatment of Ukrainians and Belorussians as serfs by a colonial Poland that Hitler pointed at when claiming the German minority in Poland was being mistreated to justify his invasion of Poland. In fact they were treated well and Hitler was lying but the brutality of Poland towards their eastern colonies gave him his justification for war that convinced the Germans.
- Also just because I’m on a roll here let’s mention that Poland was also happy to take a piece of Czechoslovakia during the Munich conference and in 1938 was de facto an ally of Nazi Germany and there is a very strong case to be made the the British were seeking to engineer a Polish-German alliance against the Soviet Union as part of their balance of power geopolitics and the British would have been very happy had the Germans launched Barbarossa alongside Poland in 1940.
Citations Needed is the most “intellectual” of them all. Like, it’s still closer to entertainment than academia and that’s absolutely fine because it’s a podcast and not a peer reviewed journal but to set expectations.
They do go into history and they platform excellent guests, usually authors and academics so the quality is there.
I don’t know about any specific episode recommendations but I really enjoyed their most recent episode (188) which gave a good perspective on how substandard products are presented as innovation, eg they explored this recent wave of “mental health apps” that are really just a symptom of the complete failure of the health system but are presented as “providing access”. They then relate this to child labor debates in the past, and to the subtle shift in language from the Dems from “universal healthcare” to the profoundly more capitalist and pro-market “access to healthcare” position.
I wouldn’t say it’s one of their best, in fact I find their quality bar is very consistent so it’s hard to pick a best for me since there is a consistently high quality. But it’s an example of how they wind together a dive into history with media analysis with politics - and this combination is what makes them unique and powerful.
After a quick scan of their episodes I would also highlight ep 154 which describes how the American progressive left get conned and bamboozled into supporting American exceptionalism, and how their critique of liberalism gets disarmed.
Anarcho-Bidenism was kind of framed as irony but they always actually meant it.
Like, it was ironic. It was. But the irony was the anarcho part all along.
They weren’t ironically supporting Biden and NATO, they really were doing that and they were smirking at how they were calling themselves anarchists while supporting Biden and NATO because even those fucking morons realized how incompatible those positions are.
But somehow in this 4chan style post post post modernism that online millennials and zoomers have created all that mattered to them was that the irony was there. They didn’t probe what the irony was, somehow they’re just content with the irony being there. That’s where the thought process terminates.
Someone tell me a German philosopher who can help me understand this phenomenon?
I don’t fucking get it. I can see what it is but I don’t fucking get it.
Every single street name in the UK is actually a euphemism for some kind of sex act
Putin sneaks into your room at night and puts your hand in a glass of warm water that’s why as a grown ass adult you still wet the bed.
Poland redemption arc let’s gooooo
When you reject the double genocide theory but you’re an Eastern European nationalist
view more: next ›
Comrade War Thunder is a valued ally in the struggle against imperialism