5 ms·

Do you think it's debatable to compare the deaths of concentration camps in Germany, and the deaths of the great famine? You often see this comparison being ma

by jokoon 8y ago

Do you think it's debatable to compare the deaths of concentration camps in Germany, and the deaths of the great famine? You often see this comparison being made (whatever the reason is), to me those deaths are different because the intention was different. The shoah was aimed at certain people, while the great famine killed indiscriminately.

anoncoward111 8y ago
The Holodomor was aimed at Ukrainians by Russians. The Great Famine was aimed at every commoner by the Politburo.
- trhway 8y ago
  Anybody who care to open wikipedia would see straight through that propaganda about Ukranians and Russians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%9333 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%93... Note: my mother side of the family were generational peasants in the Kiev region, the families of 5 siblings of my grandfather lived there through that time (the granddad took his family to look for better life elsewhere several years before that)
freeflight 8y ago
The "shoah" wasn't just aimed at "certain people", it was aimed at all opposition of any kind, political and social, that's how it started out originally. Tbh that's why I really don't like calling it "shoah", as that implies Jews were the only victims of these Nazis crimes. I have no doubt that the Chinese government "prioritized" their food similarly, giving less to those it considered "opposition" while making sure it's actual power-base was taken care off and wouldn't starve to death on them. Just like the Nazis prioritized who they killed first in Dachau not only by "Jewishness" but also the political and social influences these people held, which made them capable of opposing the Nazi rule and thus had to be "taken care off" first.
tbihl 8y ago
The interesting comparison is the epidemiological one. Fascism as a deadly infectious idea has terrible and terrifying outcomes, resulting in swift response to it, and a good understanding of what it looks like: we'll all recognize fascism upon hearing race-based rallying cries. Communism as a deadly infectious idea is probably deadlier yet; unfortunately, it is less immediately terrifying, so it doesn't get as rapid a response. And, unlike with fascism, we have a feeble understanding of when radical left-wing thought reaches malignancy, which is a problem we don't have quite so badly with fascism. As to the morality comparison, denying agency to your entire country's farmers on the belief that you can just control everything from afar and keep it running isn't that different from claiming that your country would be running well if you could just get rid of all the Jews. They're both reprehensible actions undertaken based on nonsensical beliefs; one of those beliefs just takes a bit longer to think about.
- coldtea 8y ago
  How about the extermination of the native people of the Americas, the slavery of 20 million blacks for 4 centuries, and the enslavement of 2/3rds of the world in colonies, with untold number dying? Does the capitalist "self-interest" driven cruelties get a free pass?
  - abstract7 8y ago
    American black guy here. Capitalism (capital-intensive but scaleable production) and the industrial revoltion ended slavery (inextricably linked). Within 70 years of Eli Whitney's cotton gin, slavery was abolished in the USA. Similar to how digitization at first benefited the Recording Industry because they used it internally and could rake in outsized profits from the reduced cost of music production, the cotton gin overly enriched plantation owners because they could just use slaves to operate the machines. Today, music playable whenever and wherever is prolific and the Recording Industries stranglehold has been broken thanks to digitization. Likewise, the cotton gin with interchangeable parts that could be produced in scale by factories only layed more seeds (metaphorically) to end slavery as it made it possible to produce agricultural goods at scale with a fraction of human (and animal labor). And that boom in cotton and cotton consumption drew the attention of European and American cotton consumers nowhere near plantations to how backwards the slave-system was. Slave labor was no longer in any way justifiable from a labor costs standpoint. The model of sharecropping became viable. All these factors helped end slavery. Also you can thank capitalism for helping end feudalism, where serfs and peasants were resigned to a fate of providing labor in the production of agricultural goods. In fact, the vast majority before the emergence of capitalism were enganged in providing labor for agriculture; it was not fun. Capitalism birthed the Industrial revolution. Communism did not birth the industrial revolution. Communism birthed famines. By 1920s when the first real Communist experiment called the Soviet Union began, global production of goods and services had already multiplied out of capitalist cornucopias. The Communists (Russia and China) got up in running mostly by sourcing parts and copying of manufacturing processes from capitalist countries. And US slavery had ended already. The Communists reintroduced compulsary labor. Automation in a marketplace has now driven down the costs of production so greatly that only a small fraction of capital is needed to startup a company (Silicon Vallye and the digital revolution). Capitalism 2.0 (low capital requirements) is working towards 'freeing' people of semi-coercive hourly-wage work. Are there bumps, like when plantation owners were intitually enriched. Yes, but it will get better.

by jokoon 8y ago

anoncoward111 8y ago

The Holodomor was aimed at Ukrainians by Russians. The Great Famine was aimed at every commoner by the Politburo.

trhway 8y ago
Anybody who care to open wikipedia would see straight through that propaganda about Ukranians and Russians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%9333 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%93... Note: my mother side of the family were generational peasants in the Kiev region, the families of 5 siblings of my grandfather lived there through that time (the granddad took his family to look for better life elsewhere several years before that)

freeflight 8y ago

The "shoah" wasn't just aimed at "certain people", it was aimed at all opposition of any kind, political and social, that's how it started out originally. Tbh that's why I really don't like calling it "shoah", as that implies Jews were the only victims of these Nazis crimes. I have no doubt that the Chinese government "prioritized" their food similarly, giving less to those it considered "opposition" while making sure it's actual power-base was taken care off and wouldn't starve to death on them. Just like the Nazis prioritized who they killed first in Dachau not only by "Jewishness" but also the political and social influences these people held, which made them capable of opposing the Nazi rule and thus had to be "taken care off" first.

tbihl 8y ago

The interesting comparison is the epidemiological one. Fascism as a deadly infectious idea has terrible and terrifying outcomes, resulting in swift response to it, and a good understanding of what it looks like: we'll all recognize fascism upon hearing race-based rallying cries. Communism as a deadly infectious idea is probably deadlier yet; unfortunately, it is less immediately terrifying, so it doesn't get as rapid a response. And, unlike with fascism, we have a feeble understanding of when radical left-wing thought reaches malignancy, which is a problem we don't have quite so badly with fascism. As to the morality comparison, denying agency to your entire country's farmers on the belief that you can just control everything from afar and keep it running isn't that different from claiming that your country would be running well if you could just get rid of all the Jews. They're both reprehensible actions undertaken based on nonsensical beliefs; one of those beliefs just takes a bit longer to think about.

coldtea 8y ago
How about the extermination of the native people of the Americas, the slavery of 20 million blacks for 4 centuries, and the enslavement of 2/3rds of the world in colonies, with untold number dying? Does the capitalist "self-interest" driven cruelties get a free pass?
- abstract7 8y ago
  American black guy here. Capitalism (capital-intensive but scaleable production) and the industrial revoltion ended slavery (inextricably linked). Within 70 years of Eli Whitney's cotton gin, slavery was abolished in the USA. Similar to how digitization at first benefited the Recording Industry because they used it internally and could rake in outsized profits from the reduced cost of music production, the cotton gin overly enriched plantation owners because they could just use slaves to operate the machines. Today, music playable whenever and wherever is prolific and the Recording Industries stranglehold has been broken thanks to digitization. Likewise, the cotton gin with interchangeable parts that could be produced in scale by factories only layed more seeds (metaphorically) to end slavery as it made it possible to produce agricultural goods at scale with a fraction of human (and animal labor). And that boom in cotton and cotton consumption drew the attention of European and American cotton consumers nowhere near plantations to how backwards the slave-system was. Slave labor was no longer in any way justifiable from a labor costs standpoint. The model of sharecropping became viable. All these factors helped end slavery. Also you can thank capitalism for helping end feudalism, where serfs and peasants were resigned to a fate of providing labor in the production of agricultural goods. In fact, the vast majority before the emergence of capitalism were enganged in providing labor for agriculture; it was not fun. Capitalism birthed the Industrial revolution. Communism did not birth the industrial revolution. Communism birthed famines. By 1920s when the first real Communist experiment called the Soviet Union began, global production of goods and services had already multiplied out of capitalist cornucopias. The Communists (Russia and China) got up in running mostly by sourcing parts and copying of manufacturing processes from capitalist countries. And US slavery had ended already. The Communists reintroduced compulsary labor. Automation in a marketplace has now driven down the costs of production so greatly that only a small fraction of capital is needed to startup a company (Silicon Vallye and the digital revolution). Capitalism 2.0 (low capital requirements) is working towards 'freeing' people of semi-coercive hourly-wage work. Are there bumps, like when plantation owners were intitually enriched. Yes, but it will get better.