Probably because unlike the Japanese internment camps, the deportations really were targeting actual threats, and at least people actually lived, you lying drone
@@FengBaoYolotli Lmao. It’s not a false equivalence at all. They are the exact same situation. You don’t get to deport entire ethnic groups because you think they are dangerous. Cry about it!
@@FengBaoYolotli i was in the Hasan discord and 90% of the people literally were denying these deportations took place, telling me i was insane. people really do bootlick the USSR and Stalin. Its an unfortunate fact.
Another thing, apologists for this will claim that the deportation was necessary to preserve the national identity, even though as J. Otto Pohl writes in Ethnic Cleansing in the USSR, individual collaborators were already punished. And when they were deported, they werent transferred to some reservation to maintain the national body, they were isolated into rural "Special Settlements" spread out throughout all of Central Asia that they were unable to leave for around a decade for pain of death, let alone mingle with each other. Some will also compare them to Japanese-American internment, but these deportations were considered to be a permanent exile until Khrushchev.
J. Otto Pohl also mentions that, in regards to the Kalmyks, the membership of collaborationist battalions may have seem greatly inflated, as during the Civil War a large segment of Kalmyk Whites fled for exile in Germany. When the Germans invaded Kalmykia in WWII, these exiles returned to participate in the occupation of Kalmyk lands, thus making it seem to the NKVD that a proportionally great percentage of the recorded population had collaborated. Rather than chauvanistically labeling an entire ethnicity reactionary, these factors should have been sought after 1st and foremost. And that the Soviets didn't is an indictment on them and their claimed values.
You are correct. The Crimean Tatars had negative population growth for several years after their transfer. Families were actually prevented from reuniting so many Red army vets of their ethnic group never saw their wives and children because they deported to separate areas like siberia instead of uzbekistan
@ You are a social chauvinist. Ranting about traitorous nations. It is not the job of socialist states to “rescue” other peoples by force. It clearly didn’t work out too well for the USSR, anyways.
One point I do also want to mention is that throughout Europe, many collaborators that fought for the Nazis come out, didn’t do so willingly. The Nazis conscripted thousands of people from across Europe to join various military units, including Waffen SS units. This is actually Wvii. Historians have two terms for those who cooperated with the axis powers during the war, collaborators and collaborationists. Collaborators with those who, for various reasons, such as desperation or coercion, Assisted, or aided the axis powers while under occupation. This could range from sex workers who slept with German soldiers to survive, to concentration camp inmates recruited to various military units, Municipal clerks, who are forced to perform administrative and secretarial duties for the occupational authorities, to high-ranking government officials in countries like Denmark, which bent to the pressure of the Nazis, to avoid harsher treatment by the Nazis, And you also had groups and individuals that were more voluntary in their cooperation with the Nazis, but who did so for more pragmatic, political reasons, i.e. my enemy’s enemy is my friend, And here you found some anti-colonial movements that oppose the British empire that chose to collaborate with the Axis against their primary enemy, usually Britain, Or those who are materially seeking to benefit from working with the Nazis, various industrialists and businessman for instance. Then you had collaborationists, who were ideologically motivated groups with fascist or fascist adjacent ideologies, that favored the Nazis outright. The Banderites, the Ustase, The arrow cross party, the iron guard, these were collaborationists. And within these military units The Nazis created for people from occupied countries, you would find both ideologically, motivated, collaborationists and assorted collaborators, many of whom were forcibly conscripted, and some were prisoners of war, pulled right out of POW camps, or even concentration camps.
@ a prominent example. And many of those who are forced were made to do so, either at the barrel of a gun, or out of desperation or fear or any number of factors.
@@alanritchie7850 Precisely. The Nazis never had anything good in store for the Crimean Tatars. In fact, as part of Generalplan Ost, it was initially planned for the Nazis to kill them all, viewing them as "Asiatic inferiors". Only after they struggled initially in advancing into Crimea did they loosen their stance on the Tatars, setting up a puppet government in Crimea. This, of course, still didn't stop the Nazis from destroying various Crimean Tatar villages and subjecting them to forced labor. They were Nazis after all. They also had to avoid killing most of the Crimean Karaite population as they, like the Russian Empire before them, viewed the Karaim as descendants of Crimean Goths rather than strictly as Jews, in addition tot having to avoid killing Crimean Roma as the Crimean Roma had assimilated so much into Crimean Tatar society that they were considered the fourth major subgroup of Crimean Tatars, and as such, even the more collaborationist Crimean Tatars would get pissed at the Nazis if they killed Muslim Roma.
Well and also the idea that Koreans would be pro-Japan feels unlikely given that contrary to Japanese propaganda, Koreans considered Japan to be a foreign imperialist and not their own nation.
There were a decent number of Koreans in favor of Japan, Bruce Cumings estimates it to be ~10-15% in the peninsula. The Soviets weren't the only ones to be so heavyhanded to the Koreans, there was an anti-Korean purge in the CPC as well, because in Machuria although the majority of the fighters against Japan were Koreans, the majority of the pro-Japanese collaborators were also Korean.
In my opinion, while I have no doubt that the government and its leaders genuinely believed that they were working towards socialism (despite the blatant corruption and revisionism), its nature still had remnants of a typical empire. Being the world's first and most powerful ''socialist'' country is impressive, but it's impossible to ignore the fact that during its existence, it didn't ''transcend'' civilisation, as Engels would have put it, it was a part of it. It acted in a typical nation-state fashion, fitting itself into a modern bourgeois world and inevitably committing many of the things socialism inherently aims to end. There is no justification for crimes against humanity. Of course, there were many struggles that the soviet people had to endure that weren't necessarily their fault; they did inherit a war-torn, relatively underdeveloped society. But as I mentioned in the famine video, so much could have been done differently with much more competence.
Early days of the USSR was chaotic and brutal, but much of these problems went away, especially after de-Stalinization. Hence, no year cited in the video was even after 1949. A lot of countries are formed on not the most moral foundations and improve over time through reforms. It is weird to claim that the collapse of the USSR was a positive for humanity based on things it was not practicing at the time of its collapse.
@@amihartz The deportations stopped by then, but even after de-Stalinization, many of the deported ethnic groups, in particular the Volga Germans, Meshketian Turks, and Crimean Tatars, were still subjected to apartheid in the form of "special settlements".
As a post Soviet national who wants to reunify this nation, I think these are genuine and very important criticisms and that we were to re-establish a new USSR, we should be sure that it never happen again. I don't see why I'm supposed to deny or justify these terrible things, cuz most of the time Western people ate least admit to their crimes, I haven't seen many Americans deny the Trail of Tears happened.
uhh bad mouse the assyrian empire also did that to it subjects in fact they moved whole population to other places and i don't see you criticising then huh, checkmate bri"ish man
I am related to a number of Germans who were expelled from the Volga. Many still remain in Siberia, or have since emigrated to Kazakhstan. It's a very niche topic of history, and I am very glad you talked about it.
The soviet leadership burning a whole bunch of people because they couldn't relocate them for the moment. Modern soviet apologist: it was an oopsie guys, i swear.
An unfortunate tragedy that we must be critical of. However, we must not criticize the Soviet Union, its leaders, or its system at large. Party dictatorships are the only way to implement socialism.
I'm quite glad with your frank tone in these videos. My exposure to these events through the _The Great War_ and _World War 2_ channels (hosted by Jesse Alexander and Indy Neidell respectively) gave me lots to chew on, especially as those guys did a good job at also covering the war crimes of not just the Soviet Union, but also the Nazis, the British and Americans in Bengal and Iran, and the Japanese all across southeast Asia and China
The most egregious part of Furr’s book is he argues that NOT deporting the entirety of the Crimean Tatars would have been genocide. Absolutely insane individual. And nothing he writes reads like a work of history. He isn’t actually studying the past, he’s just doing apologetics. It’s just an extra long RUclips comment by “StalinDidNothingWrong1945” except by a professor with a PhD instead of a high school student.
The deportations were wrong, literally never met someone going so far as to attempt justification or vindication of these events, mostly we try to put them in context so as to understand how such a policy was enacted. You guys seem more than pleased to reduce everything down to “ahh but you see they have done a bad thing, this makes them not real communists or revolutionaries”.
He literally cites an “academic” who justifies them in this very video. And yes, the Soviet system as a whole can and should be criticized when it leads to shit like ethnic deportations.
I've met quite a few ML people who have straight up told me that human rights are bourgeoisie and that the victims either deserved it or it was understandable 'given the circumstances'. Stalin is still held in high regard by many ML organizations despite his deportation policies
@@chewchewtrain Critique is literally central to ML ideology, so yeah it absolutely should be critiqued and harshly so, this is no reason to dismiss the entire lexicon of theory which continues to spark revolution to this day. No communist believes that any given communist country was perfect and those who do clearly didn’t read ANYTHING of consequence, and cannot genuinely consider themselves communists. And to reiterate, I’ve never “met” any communists who attempt to justify the deportations. Of course there is a mountain of hot garbage literature and dogmatic articles surrounding the topic, there is also a wealth of communist literature and theory which harshly critiques the crimes and mistakes of previous revolutions. This fictional communist you guys despise exists only in superficial online arguments, any actual communists working towards revolution do not prescribe to the idea that communists never did anything wrong, thats insane.
@@alanritchie7850 Stalin is held in high regard despite his more regressive policies (also we really need to drop this idea that Stalin was the architect of all events both good and evil, realistically that’s just not how the Soviet gov’t worked at all) as a result of the immense amount of good that was accomplished under his administration in the face of genuinely insurmountable odds. And again, just because someone calls themself an ML or a communist does not mean that they actually understand what that means, in the same way that people who claim to be libertarian or neoliberal have no clue what that means. I have no doubt that you have had such encounters, but if that is their understanding of history then they can’t possibly prescribe to any communist ideology, let alone ML, in anything more than a superficial way.
I feel it is also important to mention another incident similar to the Khaibakh massacre. Soon after the deportation of the Crimean Tatars was thought to be complete, it was found that the NKVD had forgotten to deport Crimean Tatars from the Arabat Spit. So, instead of calling up a second train, on July 20th, 1944, they loaded hundreds of Crimean Tatars onto an old boat, took it out to the middle of the Azov Sea, and sank it. Any who survived that were killed with machine guns. There were no survivors. Even after de-Stalinization, the Crimean Tatars, along with the Volga Germans and Meshketian Turks, were still subjected to apartheid in the form of "special settlements". I would also say that settler-colonialism was a major motivation for the Soviet administration, as they would go on to deny the existence of Crimean Tatars and rename Crimean Tatar toponyms, as well as moving predominantly Russian (with some Ukrainian) settlers into the region.
The biggest reason for authortarian co-option of working class revolutions thus far seems to be the idea that fewer people making decisions equals being able to respond to emergencies faster. But is that actually true? In recent times, the fastest responders have been horizontal orgs like mutual aid, as opposed to unaccountable state politicians allowing famines to happen.
(for context, I'm an anarchist but) in theory indeed it's obviously true that a rigid and centralized hirearchy is faster at responding to crisis ... buuuut the crisis they'll respond to and the ways they respond to it are the greatest problem (because of difference in interest and also lack of knowledge on specifics of people for ex)
@cyberspacekosmonaut This is circular reasoning - for the anarchist organization (federated with others for shortage refills) to have resources it needs to grow and to grow it needs support, but you're saying people have no reason to support it because it didn't start out big enough in the first place (as if state dictatorships just fell out of the sky one day and didn't require a lot of support to come about as well) All authoritarian arguments are just self fulfilling prophecies.
Great series, can't see whats next! The fact that many see the ML path as the only path we can take is kinda sad tbh. I get WHY people go for that, but we'd still need to implement something new in our socialist movements. Immagination is revolutionary and we need it so that we can create something new. The "AES" countries started from different material conditions than us in the west, so why would we copy and paste those types of goverments into our realities? i dont think it's the smartest idea! Why, after a whole century, of only 2 parties, americans would accept a single party rule? only cause it's proletarian? and what about the libertarian (in the political sense not economic one) history of the USA? and what about european countries where socialits and comunist parties were (and are) at the fore front for democracy? We need to imagine new paths and we need to look at the whole history of socialism before moving towards the future
So according to this guy, when the anarchist CNT defected to the fas63st francoist side at the tail end of the Spanish civil war,that means anarchism is inherently aligned with the far right? What kind of crude essentialism is this? As if actual on the ground circumstances and conditions don’t matter. Sure they may have lacked the ideological discipline and commitment and in that sense they’re “bad” but to ignore the obvious incentive to join the dark side to protect oneself in a lost cause is immature. “Everybody’s got a plan until they get punched in the face” Mike Tyson
@ Not as a whole but many of their units were took agreements and truces with the Franco government towards the end of the war, which is de facto “joining them”. Some escaped and left the movement and some went underground. Many obviously were caught and killed or imprisoned. A similar thing happened in the Syrian war, many in the south made deals with the Syrian gov to keep their weapons, units, leadership and essentially de facto work for Assad. My point is, you cannot blame the ideology for those who defected considering the circumstances of a war effectively lost. Im pretty sure that had the anarchists conquered political power in Spain successfully and lasted, they would’ve suppressed all the other factions to ensure their social vision holds. That’s the whole point of politics. Suppression is just negotiation by other means.
I forget to mention that some of the CNT-FAI leadership were negotiating with Franco by 1938 before the situation became too desperate, and before the collapse of the republican side.
@@hansfrankfurter2903 Did really a lot of their units sided with Franco (and no, that doesn't mean that the CNT as a whole joined them)? And really they collaborated with Franco before the civil war? And did this supposedly happened before or after the Stalinist hijacked the regime and started attacking them? A lot of citations are needed.
@user98344 yes before the end of the war. they even worked for Franco as spies and enforcers after the war ended. Before that the CNT was in negotiations with Franco since at least 1938. I dont know what you mean by Stalin. The USSR wasnt fighting in Spain they just supported the anti franco alliance broadly with weaponry. In fact they’re the only major state to do so.
Ive never met an ML who defend the deportations. Explaining the soviet position isnt defence. You paint ML's with very broadbrush which makes sense since any real exposure you could have in britain arent great
Not many defend them but very often when someone talks about them they start mentioning the usual "that's CIA propaganda" "that was not as bad as people say in the west" "we can't judge the whole system from just some millions people dying" et cetera
@@FengBaoYolotli the FBI was literally created to go after anarchists - you know... like what you like to do? Every state capitalist accusation is a confession.
@@FengBaoYolotli The feds were created to persecute anarchists, like you also love to do. don't you have a check from putin to collect, mr. ribbentro- sorry, I mean molotov?
I don't find Grover Furr's apologia very convincing myself, but to conflate it with an all-or-nothing defense of the USSR being typical of MLs, I'm not convinced by that either. So if MLs admit there are severe problems with Soviet administration, but don't reject the Soviet project altogether, does that mean they are downplaying atrocities? Even though there were projects of indigenization that demonstrate displacement was not a core fixture of the USSR? If Grover Furr is an immodest propagandist, how is this video not also an immodest propaganda by fixating on him and painting MLs into the same category?
The focus I tend to go on is a similar analogy to the Fruit of the poisonous tree. I'm other words, if a system from its core or inception was built on rotten foundations, you need to factor this in when talking about the nice stuff that emerged from it. It might well be that the USSR managed to do great things, but the same can also be said for Social Democracies, that doesn't mean we still have stock in the system. And what ultimately are we defending when we reify the USSR and other AES places? Social welfare. Yet stood completely in the way of creating avenues towards Communism forming due to its centralisation taking autonomy out of the hands of every day people. So sure if you want to say they did bad things but you ultimately still support it fine, but know that Liberals will say the same. It's a matter of legitimacy. Furr is a symptom. You don't find an equivalent in say an Anarchist or Left communist sphere, this again speaks to the problems which arise when it comes to defending a bad legacy and should highlight it more prominently.
@@BadMouse101 You don't find the equiv in Anarchist or leftcom spheres, because they are all utter failures. They never had to make hard choices in reality. So they are free to remain pure. And irrelevant. Fruit of the poisoned tree? Ok, show the poison.
I think that communists are in agreement that a state is not the ideal social condition, after all a state will often exert power and even abuse power in self interest. It really does come down to whether or not a state is necessary for building socialism while defending against internal sabotage and external attack. Anarchism doesn't have the same degree of success on that front, Anarchism also violated autonomy, after all as Engels pointed out, revolution is extremely authoritarian as it imposes it's will against others.
The 'poison' would be the vanguard strategy. State formation, Democratic Centralism etc. The effects of the RR are often just scurried away due to the conditions they were faced with, except the ideology and ideas you go along with shape the way those conditions are handled. Also @unchillada5858 I would recommend looking into some critiques of On Authority because Engel's argument is really not up to scratch.
i saw MLs defend indians siding with Japanese in the burma against brittish colonial troops turn around and use the same argument to attack minorities siding with the nazis in the caucasus
Been watching you since highschool, glad to see you continuing to make content. I still find myself, even after watching this entire mini series to be an ML. This has opened my eyes to fallacies, bad faith arguments, and immoral ideas i held previously, irregardless. Particularly, on calling these deportations "mistakes". Also thank you for informing me on the Khaiback Massacre. These decisions, particularly the deportations, are indefensible, and should have never occurred, largely, to any extent. My current political stance, is brought by a question on these actions, on if the modern ML, were to 'win', in whatever way that looks, would these policies be implemented again? The Soviet or ML tactic has been proven to be effective, the idea that we should abandon the systems of 'AES' because of these actions, rather than accept that they should have never been done in the first place, and then building on the already stable foundation, is effectively feeding into capitalist propagandists, 'it failed, or did this and that, that it must never be attempted again' Pragmaticly, i find the path forward to be doing what works. Would love your thoughts on this. Thanks again, appreciate you keeping discourse flowing, and having those on the left ask ugly questions about themselves, that are ever necessary for progress.
This. Exactly this. This entire series has not even touched the topic of ML. It has merely been about the acts of a single country led by ML. Bad Mouse did not address the ideology at all and acts like ML is somehow synonymous with the soviet union.
The contention is that the foundation was not stable. It created a system which would never give rise to the conditions for Communism to emerge because the state is inherently opposed to such things, taking away decision making from the masses and pushing into a centralised core. The nature of the ideology shapes what direction you'll take. On a Micro-level to demonstrate. A strict father who requires unconditional support from their child, tells them to never question them or answer back... Verses a reciprocal family relationship which encourages debate and discussion and respects their decisions... Same conditions. Which dynamic do you feel would foster more positive traits and values? This is why we talk about bringing the path you choose in tandem with the ends you seek, instead of choosing gambits in the name of security. Something I have learnt from making this series is that its probably better to go after the central cores of the ideology instead of its effects, though they are still useful. I do go into it a bit in the next 2 videos, but in the future I intend on making a breakdown of Vanguardism, though this will at the best be out at the end of the year.
Except it only "works" are recreating capitalism, in search of the future you can only look back at the past. "just don't do the bad stuff this time" this can said to excuse retrying any system, no matter how many incentives there are to consolidate abus-able power that naturally attracts dishonest, opportunistic and manipulative populists, hierarchy corrupts the best (scientifically proven to damage the brain) and is sought after the most by the worst. Sorry but speedrunning cap development isn't enough to transcend it, nor is it worth giving up a worker controlled revolution... again. You don't know any of that because your only understanding of libertarian-soc comes from strawman your side has made up.
@ You're reversing the logic in your example. If you apply a shit ideology you're gonna get a shitty government. That does not mean that a government making shitty decisions mean the entire underlying ideology is the problem here. The soviet union had its flaws and soviet leaders have committed major crimes. However that says nothing about the ideology it was founded upon. By that same logic I could say "look at Cuba, they're doing so well, this is clearly proof that ML always works and is an amazing ideology". It's not that simple. No system is foolproof and you cannot evaluate something like that by the actions of a single country.
It seems that MLs define "actually existing socialism" so broadly that it means nothing more than "whatever system a revolutionary movement that calls itself socialist happens to end up with," with no regard to what the movement's originally stated aims were.
Critical support to the currently ONLY exiting socialist state of Jucheist Korea. it's the duty of every Marxist Leninist today to immigrate to Jucheist Korea to aid the struggle and abandon their decadent lifestyles in the Imperial Core.
Good series so far! Are you planning on releasing a video giving another update on if youve had any personal ideological changes? I know a good chunk of your fanbase that you picked up in the past couple of years has been annoyed by this series, lol. While a lot of this series isnt news to me, I can see the need for a video like this and Im just curious what spurred you into doing this.
@@michaelbarbarich3965 That is a HILARIOUS take. Holy crap, these comments can't be real, there's no way you are real people and not just feds posting comments to back up the latest acquisition to the propaganda portfolio.
Simple solution on deportations: the USSR never moved beyond its bourgeois stage. And what are bourgeois states known for? That's right, ethnic cleansing, deportations, and genocide. This isn't a defense of the USSR. It's noting that it wasn't "socialist". There are many reasons for this like the failures of the German Revolution among others as socialism can only happen with world revolution. The country backslide after both the KPD failed AND Lenin died. Stalin can be seen as the personification of counterrevolution, but Trotsky would be no better.
Personally, what I’m looking for is something similar to A socialist constitutional direct democracy. If you wanna vote on a specific bill, you get to take a day off work paid. And have transportation to a government building. Where you have to watch a bunch of video presentations. For the side that is pro and for the the side that is negative on whatever it is, you’ll be voting on. All brought to you by a government run independent news agency that investigates all the sides and desires of both sides on the bill. So that you are properly informed before you vote. So if you wanna vote on a particular bill, that’s the process you go through. Replacing private property with personal property Replacing copy royalty rights with open source Having yearly fairs for anyone to create ad or enhance scientific understanding or bettering products and technology. And the winners get a one time cash prize. Not a passive income of copy royalty rights, and private property. To establish universal basic services Housing Education Utilities Transportation Medical. The rest can be run by worker co-ops. Or individuals. Most of that being entertainment. But I don’t know at least I think that would be a better system than what we have now but I’m just one person with an opinion :-) I try
Video on Palestine? Nope, video SERIES trying to discredit the Soviet experiment by pointing to its worst moments both true and false, and trying to conflate policies like population transfers with Marxism-Leninism? Yes, enthusiastically yes apparently. It's really such a ridiculous thing to try to draw a completely fallacious link between policies like deportations to Marxism-Leninism. Where in the writings of Marx, Engels or Lenin did they argue, or even suggest the slightest support, for policies of deportation? And you, at the end, attempt to strike a death nail into Marxism-Leninism by again trying to draw a direct link between its theory and these policies with, again, zero evidence. No, Marxism-Leninism did not cause these deportations, and cannot be sited as the ideological driving factor for them. If you were at all engaged in honest analysis you would have at least mentioned the fact that these policies were common practise among world powers at the time as perhaps, just maybe, a slightly more likely reason for them happening. Instead you try to conflate it with events that took place in America hundreds of years before. And to bring up the American project in comparison is such a boldfaced admission of the absurdity of this argument. America as a settler-colonial project was explicitly and inseperably engaged in the buisness of genocide and population transfer. That, CANNOT be, in good faith, compared with the USSR, which was not fundamentally based upon the expulsion, murder and colonisation of a foreign land. I think you should be greatful to be called a fed, because if you are truly making this propaganda of your own will, without any monetary incentive from reactionary organisations it would make it all the more pathetic.
Valid point sure, but honestly we have a lot of videos about Palestine. Excellent ones - such as the ones from BadEmpanada. What more can be possibly said about the genocide that isn't already well known and frankly proven beyond all doubt? The Left are in complete agreement on Palestine, I know there are some truly comical and clownish "Israeli leftists" doing apologia but does anyone take them seriously?
@@OhNotThat For one, my point about no videos about Palestine is only semi-literal. What I'm really saying is that it reflects poorly on BadMouse that his focus is, during a time in history such as now, where for arguably the first time since the collapse of the international communist movement in the 90s, there is significant motion in the direction of leftism, (specifically into Marxist-Leninist consciousness) on attacking Marxism. This focus on not only levying bad-faith criticisms of the Soviet experiment, but on trying to take down Marxism-Leninism as a theory, not by analysing the theory as it was, and is applied, but instead by pointing to cherrypicked examples of bad things that happened in the legal boundaries of the USSR, without ever clarifying exactly how, or well, even generally how they are even related to Marxism-Leninism in a bizarre attempt to discredit it. And for two, I envy your feeling that the left is at all unified on Palestine. There are a depressing many who claim to be anti-Zionist and simply are not. I'm sure you're familiar with the LonarBoxes and Vaushes of the world... sadly its not just delusional Israeli leftist apologists. This video to me is just yet another anarchist who's main focus as a 'leftist' is, oddly enough, just constantly attacking Marxists. I would give them more of a pass if they could point to a single successful society they established. But it just seems that in reality all they are capable of doing is being a nuisance who fight against the revolution... Cough cough, Spanish anarchists wrecking in the republican faction and Makhnovists, let alone the modern 'anarchists' like Vaush and his ilk.
If the Indian removal was Genocidal, then so was Stalins deportations. The ML system treated its indigenous peoples with appalling callousness. Maybe the actions aren't linked with ideology but Russia engaged in settler colonialism and the USSR sure didn't improve things to much
@@alanritchie7850 Saying that it did not improve things too much is just utterly denialist. This is a perfect example of how these other so called "leftist" currents utterly betray the working class movement, it inevitabely leads to these sort of delusions where you would genuinely try to argue that Tsarist Russia was the same as the USSR in terms of its treatment of minorities. Not only that not being true, but even if it were, which it isnt, this is the same argument that the imperialists make against communism by using Pol Pot or the Shining Path of Peru as examples of how "socialism fails", both nominally ML movements which betrayed their supposed ideological tennants entirely, and if you read any of their writing are in complete opposition to the views of Marxism-Leninism. I don't think you would deny that the USSR made unprecedented leaps in human developement, and its dissolusion was an utter catastrophy for its population and even humanity as a whole, if you do deny these things then I really see no point in even arguing with you. But that being said, those advances can be said to be unique and resultant from the application of Marxism-Leninism, there is a clear link between ideology and practise, this, once again, cannot be said for the deportation policies. Your argument lost to a comment I made before you even wrote yours somehow.
Engles talked abut regressive nations whcih will vanish in revoltion thinking of south slavs in austo hungary.ironically they were mroe revolutionary than his preffered nations-hungarians and austrians.
So if you just count the initial movement during the transports, then it would apparently be 0.25%, which is the only number Furr references. When they arrived they were faced with widespread difficulties relating to infrastructure and supplies which led to many many more dying.
It's the right answer to the wrong question. It's the answer to "how many people died in transport?", but not "how many people died due to being transported?"
@@BadMouse101 isn't there an alternative to this figure cause it does indeed seem quite low and i'd be surprised if the transitional conditions were so "good" only for them to be left in the middle of nowhere and starve
As an ex-ML, my personal observation is that this movement is more or less a cult where terminally online people get together and talk about how great Stalin was. If I had to guess most of them are probably either still in school, or 30 year olds with no friends.
Maybe your first video should have been the one where you explain why we should care. There's hardly anything here that can't be handwaved with historical comparisons. The French revolution was also accompanied by countless atrocities, yet I doubt you'd reconsider democracy because of it.
Perhaps socialism should not be implemented through a system where the head of the one legal party can deport entire ethnic groups with the stroke of a pen.
I was hoping you can continue the series, like dealing with the Great Purge myth/defenses, Mao’s “flawed” cultural revolution, or Marxists shutting down unconventional left ideologies for not being in the standards of dialectical materialism…
Cultural Revolution was a good idea, but unfortunately it was always a fight between two factions and not a bottom up thing. Basically it didn't go far enough.
The cultural revolution is quite ironically completely misunderstood by almost everyone so we do need a more comprehensive deep dive. The best reductionist way to sum it up is that it was the Chinese Communist version of MAGA, quite ironically to what Americans believed the Cultural Revolution was absolutely swimming in easy access to guns and the right to armed defense. So no doubt americans would actually greatly sympathise with them haha
@@OhNotThat Uh, no, while the CR was bad, it was nothing like the imperialist racist genocide enthusiasts that are MAGA. It was bad because it misdiagnosed China's problem, not recognizing it was due to underdevelopment but believed it was due to sociocultural factors in the superstructure. It was bad because it's false diagnosis led to a false solution, Mao basically called for anarchism, encouraging everyone to overthrow their higher-ups, which led to a breakdown in societal order and complete chaos, resulting in large number of deaths.
14:11 What? Are you saying the bourgeoisie shouldn't be oppressed at the barrel of the gun by the proletariat? Remember from Marx: "When our time comes, we shall make no excuses for the terror."
Yes, he is a moralist. Their whole schtick is that they are morally superior to everyone else. They do not support any real-world leftist movement, they just sit in their armchair criticizing all leftist movements of the past (in this case, even those that have long since collapsed and is mocked by the world!) as not being morally beneath them. It helps feed the moralist ego, it makes them feel powerful even though they in reality have no power at all and nobody cares about them or what they preach. Growing into adulthood is realizing that individually we are all kind of losers and in order to be successful at all we have to acknowledge we are powerless and have to work with movements that are imperfect and don't entirely align with our values in order to nudge the world into a better place.
Ah yes, the bourgeoisie of... *checks notes* rural indigenous communities. You missed the third part of the sentence. "You cannot claim a monopoly on progress, THEN influence and suppress at the barrel of a gun, AND FINALLY act surprised when people turn against you to whatever alternative is available." Marx (and Marxists) don't act surprised when the bourgeoisie turn against them.
Thats a bit of a dogmatic interpretation. Yes we won't make excuses for revolutionary violence against our oppressors, thats quite a different story when you're talking about potential allies, or in this case people groups that were not ideologically fascist.
@BadMouse101 "Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism"
In addition to your point about the portrayal of minority groups as disloyal, I would point out that this portrayal often comprised the demonization of other leftwing revolutionary movements, by falsely comparing them to the N4zi's. Good video btw, glad to see more sources than the first two! (:
Sorry dude, but Trotskyism is a coherent political ideology. If you becoma trotskyist just because you dont like Stalin you're a fool. You are correct about the issues with Marxist-Leninist canon. However these beliefs are not part of marxism-leninism, they're a historical interpretation. You can absolutely be a Marxist-Leninist and acknowledge the bad things the USSR did. It's just that the most prominent ML's in media don't do that. Apart from that, why does the soviet union matter to modern ML's to begin with? It fell 35 years ago and we're a political movement, not a fanclub for a former country. The last segment of this video really shows how obsessed with aesthetics you seem to be. It should not matter to you if many ML's have historical revisionist takes. It should also not matter to you whether anarchists are mostly edgy teens. You should judge ideologies by their content and not by the people that typically share them.
Movements are composed of people, and their ideas, even when misinformed. We act more like a fan club than a political movement. That's the problem. And your ideas are misinformed or at the very least severely undercooked.
There was a really good documentary interviewing the korean deportees in kazakhstan and their descendents in the 90s... Let me find it... ruclips.net/video/5jwsSTNVQwY/видео.htmlfeature=shared Minor point (2:22) but if 180 years of separation is enough to make the volga germans unlikely to serve the nazis than surely several millenia of separation would make the koreans unlikely to serve the japanese. Thank you for your hard work and i look forward to whatever is next :)
Marxism-Leninism definition is not clear at all. I personally think of it as 3 completely different things: 1) Current RUclipsrs declaring themselves to be Marxist-Leninist as a way to do 2 things: first pay homage to the former state of the USSR because they feel they've been victim of massive brain washing campaign against it and, secondly, being mostly millennials, they're seeing a post-USSR world becoming a living nightmare so they wanna be explicit and defy that as narrative as bluntly as possible. I think that's mostly a good thing. 2) In the 20th century, mostly its second half, Marxist-Leninist became the state ideology of the USRR and is responsible for sabotaging and curtailing true socialism perhaps more than anything else ever was. 3) Marxism as interpret by Vladimir Lenin by adapting it to the Czarist Russian conditions of late 19th, early 20th century. It can be argued that this is the most successful form of Marxism to date and I would like to see someone making a criticism of it based on Lenin's writings themselves.
I'll go into that a bit in the next two videos, but for now, it lends itself back to the general critique of state socialism and the Vanguard. It doesn't foster the traits within people for realising communism, instead putting energy up the hierarchy of the party state structure. New conditions relating to the ruling party are created which creates a shift in dynamics between them and those they claim to represent. Centralisation doesn't create an apparatus whereby there are incentives towards Communism, the state only has incentives to continue consolidating itself and fighting back against resistance, be that nominally Capitalist or Socialist.
@@batobatice22 Its not that that isn't a valid question, its just that if you take upon yourself the understanding that building socialism as a state project will never lead to the ends you seek then you can't just say "But we need to defend the revolution" and presuppose a state. One answer might be that we need to seriously reanalyse the nature of what we consider a revolution, not simply a dive for state power but rather a prefigurative build up of decentralised power so that when those threats do arrive we will be prepared for them already.
@@BadMouse101 I see, so you're going to the genesis of the whole thing, the Marxism-Leninism definition number 3. Well, in this case I really think the critique is not against Lenin's ideas themselves, but their improper application to completely different context (nowadays USA or UK instead of old czarist Russia).
Absolutely horrid comparison between native americans and the groups that were deported. In the case of the American independence war, the native americans KNEW that the americans would keep colonizing more and more west however the british found this unprofitable, so clearly they would support the british. In what world is supporting nazis whose ENTIRE GOAL was to colonize eastern europe be in that same vain. Native americans fought with british in hopes of stopping colonization, and the collaborating minorties (not saying they all collaborated) fought FOR COLONIZATION, what the actual fuck is that argument.
what a joke of a comment. How exactly did they know? they could see the future? Did the british really mean it when they said they didn't want to expand and the natives "just knew" that was true?
@@El_Rebelde_Bro didn't study the American Revolution. Literally one of the reasons America revolted was because the settlers were refused western colonization because the British government decided to create a Native American zone west of the Appalachian mountains. As for if the British would withhold their promises, they couldn't have known but they KNEW then and there, the American settlers wanted to expand west while the British government wanted a Native American autonomous zone. In the end, the British deal was still better than the American ambition. The long-term British goals were to maintain friendly relations with the Indians and support the valuable fur trade based in Montreal.
And they knew this full well? How are you so sure of that? Considering also the past 2 years in which the USSR deliberately toned down the anti-fascist sentiment as a result of the pact. Like I said, collaboration was largely an opportune affair, just as I'm sure it was for many people in Western Europe as well, especially for the women. They used it to help themselves survive given the situation.
@@BadMouse101 You said in the video that the USSR punishing these groups for collaborating is akin to the white nationalist arguments that manifest destiny was deserved because the natives fought with britain. My argument was about this claim. I understand the rest of the claims within the video but this one claim was really confusing to me. Whether these groups knew it or not, the arguments are different, in the case of the deportations the argument is how to deal with rebellious elements (I DO NOT ARGEE WITH COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT), while in manifest destiny is just about finding an excuse to do genocide and colonization.
"Tankie discourse" is totally productive and helpful right now. I mean, in a time of rising fascism, I can't imagine anything more helpful than leftist infighting. Good job, bro! You're so smart, and you deserve a cookie!
You are a cultist. It’s never ever a good time to criticize ethnic deportations to you. People who support ethnic deportations are not on the left, they are fascists. Social chauvinists.
Well i'm sorry, you're right in these trying times of "rising fascism" we unlike MLs cannot live up your legacy of working so hard to supply tons and tons of raw material and resources to the fascists like you guys do :)
@OhNotThat first of all, I'm an anarchist. That said, MLs never provided tons and tons of raw materials and resources to fascists, so wtf kind of liberal revisionism are you on about? The historical fact is that the Allies would not have won WWII without the USSR. That is indisputable. A country that was ideologically ML did more to defeat the Nazis than any other Allied power. Finally, while I have plenty of disagreements with MLs, they are my allies in the fight against fascism, unlike liberals who are at best a roadblock trying to keep us from fighting fascists, or at worst (and most commonly) literally complicit in fascism's rise. If your focus right now is to push communist infighting, you're performing liberal wrecker shit whether you realize it or not. And if that's what you're doing, you are also my enemy regardless of what ideological position you claim and you can fuck right off.
@@jackneison Revisionism? Ever hear of the 1939 German-Soviet Trade and Credit Agreement, how about it's successor German-Soviet Commercial Agreement 1940, not that either? how about the 1941 German-Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement? The resources sent to the fascists by the MLs include: 1.6 m tons of grain, 900k tons of oil, 200k tons of cotton, 140k tons of manganese, 20k tons of chrome, 18k tons of rubber, and many 500ks tons of iron ore and pig iron. Tell me, why are MLs such habitual LIARS? And why are you so bad at this?
They're Baltic States, but generally speaking Estonians are not the same as Lithuanians and Latvians. The latter 2 speak the Baltic branch of Indo-European, whereas Estonians speak a Finno-Ugric tongue of the Uralic family.
@@BadMouse101 Yeah their language is Finno-Uralic, not Indo-European. But that's doesn't make them not real Baltic. From my understanding, the language family is named after the country group, which is named after the sea.
its quite simple, use a marxian analysis to see the class characteristic of these peoples at those specific times to figure out if they were progressive or reactionary nations. if in a region like belarus for example the gentry is made up of polish nobles then polish nationalism has a reactionary character while belarusian farmers or russian workers constitute a progressive character. if the members of a nation begin enmass joining reactionary armies as soldiers, supply reactionary forces, fight against the workers movement by attacking unionization, or oppose party control of the labour movement preventing the coalescing of workers economic demands into a political program to express the will of the working class as a class then that is a reactionary nation. history has shown with the gaels joining jacobism to restore divine right of rule rather than popular sovereignty, the bretons creating the chouannerie to fight against the french revolution as it brought feudal privilege to an end, and with the basques supporting carlism and attacking liberalization that time and again small peoples sometimes get used as fodder by agents of reaction. the question then just becomes what are reasonable actions to take to supress reaction from these people
20k Crimeans enlisted in Red Army defected to Nazis. They served as police and deathcamp exterminators. Removing such group from the population would mean the genocide. Peasant-patriarch society won't last without males. Returning soldiers would ask questions? My sister was raped by this polizai, my mom died in deathcamp, wheres no justice? And those soldiers indeed took care the justice in their own hands (case of Baltic states). Most importantly. After liberating Crimea, that army stopped and started to grow its strength. Preparing for Turkey and Unthinkable-like operations. So basicly, it was a prewar preparation. Temporality of the means didnt happened due to lack of resources. Sad situation, sadder video though.
@alanritchie7850 On deathcamps in Cremea? On operation Unthinkable? On the bulking up the military in Cremea after liberation? Etc. Those are separate topics, which you can research on your own. Pykhalov's "Why Stalin deported nations" would be a good start.
seems liek crimenas didnt belongde to USSR.Same for chechnesss.Well emrie have troubles with mainting loyalty of some of opressed groups who are there agaisnt their will.
you ignore the fact capitalist countries did this with even less reason, look at FDR who put japanese amercians into camps, or the british with the boers, may problems of marxism is merely capitalist projection. i hope no one takes you seriously
The difference? Modern Liberals aren't scrambling to defend these actions as being necessary or justified (though you can probably find crazies online who will say exactly that).
"But what about..." This video is about the USSR and not the USA or the British. Just because he didn't bring up those camps doesn't mean he supports the capitalists, it should be quite obvious he doesn't. This is the frustrating thing about criticizing the USSR or China, people just instantly assume you're a Liberal if you criticize them, and it's childish.
"A socialist regime cannot be defended by proclaiming that they did the same as a capitalist regime would do in similar circumstances. The criteria must be higher as the goals it is meant to embody and pursue are meant to be higher -- they are meant to reflect the goal of human liberation. To suggest that it can act the same as a regime dedicated to defending human exploitation and oppression shows a confusion of mind."
Wow u surprised I was expecting another Hakim and BadEmpanada a clown to laugh at as I eat my food turns out you actually produced something of value even if we ideologically disagree nicely done.
Wow u surprised I was expecting another Hakim and BadEmpanada a clown to laugh at as I eat my food turns out you actually produced something of value even if we ideologically disagree nicely done. Hi from Lithuania!
Again cheap production. How do you animate 😂 also this series only really effects "ml" s that are just like the beurocrats of china or the ussr and not real mls
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I think it's interesting that the same people who will be rightly upset at Japanese internment by the US seemingly don't care for these deportations.
That’s different because it was done by a country I don’t like
Probably because unlike the Japanese internment camps, the deportations really were targeting actual threats, and at least people actually lived, you lying drone
@@chewchewtrain Projection, much? And false equivalence
@@FengBaoYolotli Lmao. It’s not a false equivalence at all. They are the exact same situation. You don’t get to deport entire ethnic groups because you think they are dangerous. Cry about it!
@@FengBaoYolotli i was in the Hasan discord and 90% of the people literally were denying these deportations took place, telling me i was insane. people really do bootlick the USSR and Stalin. Its an unfortunate fact.
Another thing, apologists for this will claim that the deportation was necessary to preserve the national identity, even though as J. Otto Pohl writes in Ethnic Cleansing in the USSR, individual collaborators were already punished. And when they were deported, they werent transferred to some reservation to maintain the national body, they were isolated into rural "Special Settlements" spread out throughout all of Central Asia that they were unable to leave for around a decade for pain of death, let alone mingle with each other.
Some will also compare them to Japanese-American internment, but these deportations were considered to be a permanent exile until Khrushchev.
J. Otto Pohl also mentions that, in regards to the Kalmyks, the membership of collaborationist battalions may have seem greatly inflated, as during the Civil War a large segment of Kalmyk Whites fled for exile in Germany. When the Germans invaded Kalmykia in WWII, these exiles returned to participate in the occupation of Kalmyk lands, thus making it seem to the NKVD that a proportionally great percentage of the recorded population had collaborated.
Rather than chauvanistically labeling an entire ethnicity reactionary, these factors should have been sought after 1st and foremost. And that the Soviets didn't is an indictment on them and their claimed values.
You are correct. The Crimean Tatars had negative population growth for several years after their transfer. Families were actually prevented from reuniting so many Red army vets of their ethnic group never saw their wives and children because they deported to separate areas like siberia instead of uzbekistan
As an Estonian anarchist, I deeply appreciate you highlighting this part of our history.
Estonia, Poland, Finland, all those ridiculous traitorous, selfish nutjob governments that betrayed and blamed the USSR for rescuing them.
@ You are a social chauvinist. Ranting about traitorous nations. It is not the job of socialist states to “rescue” other peoples by force. It clearly didn’t work out too well for the USSR, anyways.
I'm a Maoist, Anarchists accomplished nothing! Lol
@@Solaris_Paradox Are you being serious here? or is this a joke?
I’m minarchist, all three of you guys are stupid
One point I do also want to mention is that throughout Europe, many collaborators that fought for the Nazis come out, didn’t do so willingly. The Nazis conscripted thousands of people from across Europe to join various military units, including Waffen SS units. This is actually Wvii. Historians have two terms for those who cooperated with the axis powers during the war, collaborators and collaborationists. Collaborators with those who, for various reasons, such as desperation or coercion, Assisted, or aided the axis powers while under occupation. This could range from sex workers who slept with German soldiers to survive, to concentration camp inmates recruited to various military units, Municipal clerks, who are forced to perform administrative and secretarial duties for the occupational authorities, to high-ranking government officials in countries like Denmark, which bent to the pressure of the Nazis, to avoid harsher treatment by the Nazis, And you also had groups and individuals that were more voluntary in their cooperation with the Nazis, but who did so for more pragmatic, political reasons, i.e. my enemy’s enemy is my friend, And here you found some anti-colonial movements that oppose the British empire that chose to collaborate with the Axis against their primary enemy, usually Britain, Or those who are materially seeking to benefit from working with the Nazis, various industrialists and businessman for instance. Then you had collaborationists, who were ideologically motivated groups with fascist or fascist adjacent ideologies, that favored the Nazis outright. The Banderites, the Ustase, The arrow cross party, the iron guard, these were collaborationists. And within these military units The Nazis created for people from occupied countries, you would find both ideologically, motivated, collaborationists and assorted collaborators, many of whom were forcibly conscripted, and some were prisoners of war, pulled right out of POW camps, or even concentration camps.
Women and children were conscripted nazi collaborators too eh?
Many Crimean Tatars were forced to collaborate some by doing forced labor in germany.
@ a prominent example. And many of those who are forced were made to do so, either at the barrel of a gun, or out of desperation or fear or any number of factors.
@@alanritchie7850 Precisely. The Nazis never had anything good in store for the Crimean Tatars. In fact, as part of Generalplan Ost, it was initially planned for the Nazis to kill them all, viewing them as "Asiatic inferiors". Only after they struggled initially in advancing into Crimea did they loosen their stance on the Tatars, setting up a puppet government in Crimea. This, of course, still didn't stop the Nazis from destroying various Crimean Tatar villages and subjecting them to forced labor. They were Nazis after all. They also had to avoid killing most of the Crimean Karaite population as they, like the Russian Empire before them, viewed the Karaim as descendants of Crimean Goths rather than strictly as Jews, in addition tot having to avoid killing Crimean Roma as the Crimean Roma had assimilated so much into Crimean Tatar society that they were considered the fourth major subgroup of Crimean Tatars, and as such, even the more collaborationist Crimean Tatars would get pissed at the Nazis if they killed Muslim Roma.
Well and also the idea that Koreans would be pro-Japan feels unlikely given that contrary to Japanese propaganda, Koreans considered Japan to be a foreign imperialist and not their own nation.
The difference being there were huge pro-Soviet Red movements in the countries prior to joining the Soviet Union.
There were a decent number of Koreans in favor of Japan, Bruce Cumings estimates it to be ~10-15% in the peninsula.
The Soviets weren't the only ones to be so heavyhanded to the Koreans, there was an anti-Korean purge in the CPC as well, because in Machuria although the majority of the fighters against Japan were Koreans, the majority of the pro-Japanese collaborators were also Korean.
@@youtubedlaccount9331 This can be applied towards Jews and Palestinians so shut up
In my opinion, while I have no doubt that the government and its leaders genuinely believed that they were working towards socialism (despite the blatant corruption and revisionism), its nature still had remnants of a typical empire. Being the world's first and most powerful ''socialist'' country is impressive, but it's impossible to ignore the fact that during its existence, it didn't ''transcend'' civilisation, as Engels would have put it, it was a part of it. It acted in a typical nation-state fashion, fitting itself into a modern bourgeois world and inevitably committing many of the things socialism inherently aims to end. There is no justification for crimes against humanity.
Of course, there were many struggles that the soviet people had to endure that weren't necessarily their fault; they did inherit a war-torn, relatively underdeveloped society. But as I mentioned in the famine video, so much could have been done differently with much more competence.
We absolutely do not have to give them credit
Nah They knew they weren't going towards socialism and Crediting them has put socialist movement 100 years back.
Early days of the USSR was chaotic and brutal, but much of these problems went away, especially after de-Stalinization. Hence, no year cited in the video was even after 1949. A lot of countries are formed on not the most moral foundations and improve over time through reforms. It is weird to claim that the collapse of the USSR was a positive for humanity based on things it was not practicing at the time of its collapse.
the truth is, the socialism/communism thing is rigged from the start
@@amihartz The deportations stopped by then, but even after de-Stalinization, many of the deported ethnic groups, in particular the Volga Germans, Meshketian Turks, and Crimean Tatars, were still subjected to apartheid in the form of "special settlements".
As a post Soviet national who wants to reunify this nation, I think these are genuine and very important criticisms and that we were to re-establish a new USSR, we should be sure that it never happen again. I don't see why I'm supposed to deny or justify these terrible things, cuz most of the time Western people ate least admit to their crimes, I haven't seen many Americans deny the Trail of Tears happened.
uhh bad mouse the assyrian empire also did that to it subjects in fact they moved whole population to other places and i don't see you criticising then huh, checkmate bri"ish man
Fuck
I am related to a number of Germans who were expelled from the Volga. Many still remain in Siberia, or have since emigrated to Kazakhstan. It's a very niche topic of history, and I am very glad you talked about it.
The soviet leadership burning a whole bunch of people because they couldn't relocate them for the moment.
Modern soviet apologist: it was an oopsie guys, i swear.
Soviet Leadership: "They were backward savages, we're civilizing them with socialism. Anyway the west are racist imperialists."
An unfortunate tragedy that we must be critical of. However, we must not criticize the Soviet Union, its leaders, or its system at large. Party dictatorships are the only way to implement socialism.
Cry about it
@@FengBaoYolotli Soviet Union is gone bro. Hahahahahhaa
@@chewchewtrain Dude, read the room and STFU.
I'm quite glad with your frank tone in these videos. My exposure to these events through the _The Great War_ and _World War 2_ channels (hosted by Jesse Alexander and Indy Neidell respectively) gave me lots to chew on, especially as those guys did a good job at also covering the war crimes of not just the Soviet Union, but also the Nazis, the British and Americans in Bengal and Iran, and the Japanese all across southeast Asia and China
The most egregious part of Furr’s book is he argues that NOT deporting the entirety of the Crimean Tatars would have been genocide. Absolutely insane individual. And nothing he writes reads like a work of history. He isn’t actually studying the past, he’s just doing apologetics. It’s just an extra long RUclips comment by “StalinDidNothingWrong1945” except by a professor with a PhD instead of a high school student.
Flipping the argument tactically is textbook narcissist tactics.
grover is genuinely insane. even if you defend stalin he’s a nut and a false historian.
The deportations were wrong, literally never met someone going so far as to attempt justification or vindication of these events, mostly we try to put them in context so as to understand how such a policy was enacted.
You guys seem more than pleased to reduce everything down to “ahh but you see they have done a bad thing, this makes them not real communists or revolutionaries”.
He literally cites an “academic” who justifies them in this very video. And yes, the Soviet system as a whole can and should be criticized when it leads to shit like ethnic deportations.
I've met quite a few ML people who have straight up told me that human rights are bourgeoisie and that the victims either deserved it or it was understandable 'given the circumstances'. Stalin is still held in high regard by many ML organizations despite his deportation policies
youre actually so pathetic. Plenty of people deny this which was even brought up in video you clearly didnt watch you disgusting bootlicker
@@chewchewtrain Critique is literally central to ML ideology, so yeah it absolutely should be critiqued and harshly so, this is no reason to dismiss the entire lexicon of theory which continues to spark revolution to this day. No communist believes that any given communist country was perfect and those who do clearly didn’t read ANYTHING of consequence, and cannot genuinely consider themselves communists.
And to reiterate, I’ve never “met” any communists who attempt to justify the deportations. Of course there is a mountain of hot garbage literature and dogmatic articles surrounding the topic, there is also a wealth of communist literature and theory which harshly critiques the crimes and mistakes of previous revolutions.
This fictional communist you guys despise exists only in superficial online arguments, any actual communists working towards revolution do not prescribe to the idea that communists never did anything wrong, thats insane.
@@alanritchie7850 Stalin is held in high regard despite his more regressive policies (also we really need to drop this idea that Stalin was the architect of all events both good and evil, realistically that’s just not how the Soviet gov’t worked at all) as a result of the immense amount of good that was accomplished under his administration in the face of genuinely insurmountable odds.
And again, just because someone calls themself an ML or a communist does not mean that they actually understand what that means, in the same way that people who claim to be libertarian or neoliberal have no clue what that means.
I have no doubt that you have had such encounters, but if that is their understanding of history then they can’t possibly prescribe to any communist ideology, let alone ML, in anything more than a superficial way.
I feel it is also important to mention another incident similar to the Khaibakh massacre. Soon after the deportation of the Crimean Tatars was thought to be complete, it was found that the NKVD had forgotten to deport Crimean Tatars from the Arabat Spit. So, instead of calling up a second train, on July 20th, 1944, they loaded hundreds of Crimean Tatars onto an old boat, took it out to the middle of the Azov Sea, and sank it. Any who survived that were killed with machine guns. There were no survivors.
Even after de-Stalinization, the Crimean Tatars, along with the Volga Germans and Meshketian Turks, were still subjected to apartheid in the form of "special settlements". I would also say that settler-colonialism was a major motivation for the Soviet administration, as they would go on to deny the existence of Crimean Tatars and rename Crimean Tatar toponyms, as well as moving predominantly Russian (with some Ukrainian) settlers into the region.
Do you have a source for that?
@@BadMouse101 Which part are you asking about?
About the NKVD loading them onto a boat
@@BadMouse101 Oh, page 317 of Annihilation: Volume II: The European Rimlands 1939-1953.
The biggest reason for authortarian co-option of working class revolutions thus far seems to be the idea that fewer people making decisions equals being able to respond to emergencies faster. But is that actually true? In recent times, the fastest responders have been horizontal orgs like mutual aid, as opposed to unaccountable state politicians allowing famines to happen.
(for context, I'm an anarchist but) in theory indeed it's obviously true that a rigid and centralized hirearchy is faster at responding to crisis
...
buuuut the crisis they'll respond to and the ways they respond to it are the greatest problem (because of difference in interest and also lack of knowledge on specifics of people for ex)
You have to think about resources as well. Do you think Chinese villagers stuck in an earthquake would rather be rescued by an anarchist Co-op?
@cyberspacekosmonaut This is circular reasoning - for the anarchist organization (federated with others for shortage refills) to have resources it needs to grow and to grow it needs support, but you're saying people have no reason to support it because it didn't start out big enough in the first place (as if state dictatorships just fell out of the sky one day and didn't require a lot of support to come about as well)
All authoritarian arguments are just self fulfilling prophecies.
@@cyberspacekosmonaut except the state leaves them out to dry anyway, whether it's openly capitalist or has socialist pretenses.
@@knowledgeanddefense1054 yes that's true the anarchist co-op would never get big enough to do that in the first place
Great series, can't see whats next!
The fact that many see the ML path as the only path we can take is kinda sad tbh. I get WHY people go for that, but we'd still need to implement something new in our socialist movements. Immagination is revolutionary and we need it so that we can create something new. The "AES" countries started from different material conditions than us in the west, so why would we copy and paste those types of goverments into our realities? i dont think it's the smartest idea! Why, after a whole century, of only 2 parties, americans would accept a single party rule? only cause it's proletarian? and what about the libertarian (in the political sense not economic one) history of the USA? and what about european countries where socialits and comunist parties were (and are) at the fore front for democracy? We need to imagine new paths and we need to look at the whole history of socialism before moving towards the future
A related topic I'd be interested in learning more about is the policy of de-Cossackization
So according to this guy, when the anarchist CNT defected to the fas63st francoist side at the tail end of the Spanish civil war,that means anarchism is inherently aligned with the far right?
What kind of crude essentialism is this? As if actual on the ground circumstances and conditions don’t matter.
Sure they may have lacked the ideological discipline and commitment and in that sense they’re “bad” but to ignore the obvious incentive to join the dark side to protect oneself in a lost cause is immature.
“Everybody’s got a plan until they get punched in the face”
Mike Tyson
The CNT joined the Francoist side?
@ Not as a whole but many of their units were took agreements and truces with the Franco government towards the end of the war, which is de facto “joining them”. Some escaped and left the movement and some went underground. Many obviously were caught and killed or imprisoned.
A similar thing happened in the Syrian war, many in the south made deals with the Syrian gov to keep their weapons, units, leadership and essentially de facto work for Assad.
My point is, you cannot blame the ideology for those who defected considering the circumstances of a war effectively lost.
Im pretty sure that had the anarchists conquered political power in Spain successfully and lasted, they would’ve suppressed all the other factions to ensure their social vision holds. That’s the whole point of politics. Suppression is just negotiation by other means.
I forget to mention that some of the CNT-FAI leadership were negotiating with Franco by 1938 before the situation became too desperate, and before the collapse of the republican side.
@@hansfrankfurter2903 Did really a lot of their units sided with Franco (and no, that doesn't mean that the CNT as a whole joined them)? And really they collaborated with Franco before the civil war? And did this supposedly happened before or after the Stalinist hijacked the regime and started attacking them? A lot of citations are needed.
@user98344 yes before the end of the war. they even worked for Franco as spies and enforcers after the war ended.
Before that the CNT was in negotiations with Franco since at least 1938.
I dont know what you mean by Stalin. The USSR wasnt fighting in Spain they just supported the anti franco alliance broadly with weaponry. In fact they’re the only major state to do so.
Ive never met an ML who defend the deportations. Explaining the soviet position isnt defence.
You paint ML's with very broadbrush which makes sense since any real exposure you could have in britain arent great
Not many defend them but very often when someone talks about them they start mentioning the usual "that's CIA propaganda" "that was not as bad as people say in the west" "we can't judge the whole system from just some millions people dying" et cetera
I mean I do explicitly state that most ML's tend to have sympathies... And that they downplay it as a tragedy or and excess...
I've argued with plenty of ML's who defend the deportations.
@hipgnosis533 every group has its idiots
@@nicholascharles9625 your group has alot
Looking forward to all the trolls calling you a fed. Seriously though, loved the series.
I was literally about to say the same thing.
Probably because he is one
@@vanguard1346 Bootlicker
@@FengBaoYolotli the FBI was literally created to go after anarchists - you know... like what you like to do? Every state capitalist accusation is a confession.
@@FengBaoYolotli The feds were created to persecute anarchists, like you also love to do.
don't you have a check from putin to collect, mr. ribbentro- sorry, I mean molotov?
I don't find Grover Furr's apologia very convincing myself, but to conflate it with an all-or-nothing defense of the USSR being typical of MLs, I'm not convinced by that either. So if MLs admit there are severe problems with Soviet administration, but don't reject the Soviet project altogether, does that mean they are downplaying atrocities? Even though there were projects of indigenization that demonstrate displacement was not a core fixture of the USSR? If Grover Furr is an immodest propagandist, how is this video not also an immodest propaganda by fixating on him and painting MLs into the same category?
The focus I tend to go on is a similar analogy to the Fruit of the poisonous tree.
I'm other words, if a system from its core or inception was built on rotten foundations, you need to factor this in when talking about the nice stuff that emerged from it.
It might well be that the USSR managed to do great things, but the same can also be said for Social Democracies, that doesn't mean we still have stock in the system.
And what ultimately are we defending when we reify the USSR and other AES places? Social welfare. Yet stood completely in the way of creating avenues towards Communism forming due to its centralisation taking autonomy out of the hands of every day people.
So sure if you want to say they did bad things but you ultimately still support it fine, but know that Liberals will say the same. It's a matter of legitimacy.
Furr is a symptom. You don't find an equivalent in say an Anarchist or Left communist sphere, this again speaks to the problems which arise when it comes to defending a bad legacy and should highlight it more prominently.
@@BadMouse101 You don't find the equiv in Anarchist or leftcom spheres, because they are all utter failures.
They never had to make hard choices in reality.
So they are free to remain pure.
And irrelevant.
Fruit of the poisoned tree? Ok, show the poison.
@@BadMouse101 leftcom Grover Furr cannot exist because there is no legacy to defend. You cannot take power if you never leave your armchair
I think that communists are in agreement that a state is not the ideal social condition, after all a state will often exert power and even abuse power in self interest. It really does come down to whether or not a state is necessary for building socialism while defending against internal sabotage and external attack. Anarchism doesn't have the same degree of success on that front, Anarchism also violated autonomy, after all as Engels pointed out, revolution is extremely authoritarian as it imposes it's will against others.
The 'poison' would be the vanguard strategy. State formation, Democratic Centralism etc. The effects of the RR are often just scurried away due to the conditions they were faced with, except the ideology and ideas you go along with shape the way those conditions are handled.
Also @unchillada5858 I would recommend looking into some critiques of On Authority because Engel's argument is really not up to scratch.
i saw MLs defend indians siding with Japanese in the burma against brittish colonial troops turn around and use the same argument to attack minorities siding with the nazis in the caucasus
Been watching you since highschool, glad to see you continuing to make content.
I still find myself, even after watching this entire mini series to be an ML.
This has opened my eyes to fallacies, bad faith arguments, and immoral ideas i held previously, irregardless. Particularly, on calling these deportations "mistakes". Also thank you for informing me on the Khaiback Massacre.
These decisions, particularly the deportations, are indefensible, and should have never occurred, largely, to any extent.
My current political stance, is brought by a question on these actions, on if the modern ML, were to 'win', in whatever way that looks, would these policies be implemented again?
The Soviet or ML tactic has been proven to be effective, the idea that we should abandon the systems of 'AES' because of these actions, rather than accept that they should have never been done in the first place, and then building on the already stable foundation, is effectively feeding into capitalist propagandists, 'it failed, or did this and that, that it must never be attempted again' Pragmaticly, i find the path forward to be doing what works.
Would love your thoughts on this.
Thanks again, appreciate you keeping discourse flowing, and having those on the left ask ugly questions about themselves, that are ever necessary for progress.
This. Exactly this. This entire series has not even touched the topic of ML. It has merely been about the acts of a single country led by ML. Bad Mouse did not address the ideology at all and acts like ML is somehow synonymous with the soviet union.
"just do what works lol" you are the enemies of progressing into new systems, which is why capitalism has remained
The contention is that the foundation was not stable. It created a system which would never give rise to the conditions for Communism to emerge because the state is inherently opposed to such things, taking away decision making from the masses and pushing into a centralised core. The nature of the ideology shapes what direction you'll take.
On a Micro-level to demonstrate. A strict father who requires unconditional support from their child, tells them to never question them or answer back... Verses a reciprocal family relationship which encourages debate and discussion and respects their decisions...
Same conditions. Which dynamic do you feel would foster more positive traits and values?
This is why we talk about bringing the path you choose in tandem with the ends you seek, instead of choosing gambits in the name of security.
Something I have learnt from making this series is that its probably better to go after the central cores of the ideology instead of its effects, though they are still useful. I do go into it a bit in the next 2 videos, but in the future I intend on making a breakdown of Vanguardism, though this will at the best be out at the end of the year.
Except it only "works" are recreating capitalism, in search of the future you can only look back at the past.
"just don't do the bad stuff this time" this can said to excuse retrying any system, no matter how many incentives there are to consolidate abus-able power that naturally attracts dishonest, opportunistic and manipulative populists, hierarchy corrupts the best (scientifically proven to damage the brain) and is sought after the most by the worst. Sorry but speedrunning cap development isn't enough to transcend it, nor is it worth giving up a worker controlled revolution... again.
You don't know any of that because your only understanding of libertarian-soc comes from strawman your side has made up.
@ You're reversing the logic in your example. If you apply a shit ideology you're gonna get a shitty government. That does not mean that a government making shitty decisions mean the entire underlying ideology is the problem here. The soviet union had its flaws and soviet leaders have committed major crimes. However that says nothing about the ideology it was founded upon. By that same logic I could say "look at Cuba, they're doing so well, this is clearly proof that ML always works and is an amazing ideology". It's not that simple. No system is foolproof and you cannot evaluate something like that by the actions of a single country.
It seems that MLs define "actually existing socialism" so broadly that it means nothing more than "whatever system a revolutionary movement that calls itself socialist happens to end up with," with no regard to what the movement's originally stated aims were.
It's because AES is revisionist to Marxism.
Critical support to the currently ONLY exiting socialist state of Jucheist Korea. it's the duty of every Marxist Leninist today to immigrate to Jucheist Korea to aid the struggle and abandon their decadent lifestyles in the Imperial Core.
You are wrong. The Nazis called themselves socialist. The Ba'ath called themselves socialist. Show me a single ML that is pro Nazi or pro Ba'ath.
@@angryyordle4640 A man by the name of "Vyacheslav Molotov" and the USSR between the years 1939 and 1941 :)
@@OhNotThat you're insane if you think Molotov considered the Nazis socialists
Good series so far! Are you planning on releasing a video giving another update on if youve had any personal ideological changes? I know a good chunk of your fanbase that you picked up in the past couple of years has been annoyed by this series, lol. While a lot of this series isnt news to me, I can see the need for a video like this and Im just curious what spurred you into doing this.
In around 2 weeks.
@@BadMouse101 ty looking forward to it!
@@BadMouse101 looking forward to ur work bro, much love from a Polish guy in Scotland.
@@BadMouse101thank you for being intellectually honest
@@michaelbarbarich3965 That is a HILARIOUS take.
Holy crap, these comments can't be real, there's no way you are real people and not just feds posting comments to back up the latest acquisition to the propaganda portfolio.
Simple solution on deportations: the USSR never moved beyond its bourgeois stage. And what are bourgeois states known for? That's right, ethnic cleansing, deportations, and genocide.
This isn't a defense of the USSR. It's noting that it wasn't "socialist".
There are many reasons for this like the failures of the German Revolution among others as socialism can only happen with world revolution.
The country backslide after both the KPD failed AND Lenin died. Stalin can be seen as the personification of counterrevolution, but Trotsky would be no better.
Fantastic series, keep up the good work!
Personally, what I’m looking for is something similar to
A socialist constitutional direct democracy.
If you wanna vote on a specific bill, you get to take a day off work paid. And have transportation to a government building. Where you have to watch a bunch of video presentations. For the side that is pro and for the the side that is negative on whatever it is, you’ll be voting on. All brought to you by a government run independent news agency that investigates all the sides and desires of both sides on the bill. So that you are properly informed before you vote.
So if you wanna vote on a particular bill, that’s the process you go through.
Replacing private property with personal property
Replacing copy royalty rights with open source
Having yearly fairs for anyone to create ad or enhance scientific understanding or bettering products and technology.
And the winners get a one time cash prize. Not a passive income of copy royalty rights, and private property.
To establish universal basic services
Housing
Education
Utilities
Transportation
Medical.
The rest can be run by worker co-ops. Or individuals. Most of that being entertainment.
But I don’t know at least I think that would be a better system than what we have now but I’m just one person with an opinion :-) I try
Video on Palestine? Nope, video SERIES trying to discredit the Soviet experiment by pointing to its worst moments both true and false, and trying to conflate policies like population transfers with Marxism-Leninism? Yes, enthusiastically yes apparently. It's really such a ridiculous thing to try to draw a completely fallacious link between policies like deportations to Marxism-Leninism.
Where in the writings of Marx, Engels or Lenin did they argue, or even suggest the slightest support, for policies of deportation? And you, at the end, attempt to strike a death nail into Marxism-Leninism by again trying to draw a direct link between its theory and these policies with, again, zero evidence. No, Marxism-Leninism did not cause these deportations, and cannot be sited as the ideological driving factor for them.
If you were at all engaged in honest analysis you would have at least mentioned the fact that these policies were common practise among world powers at the time as perhaps, just maybe, a slightly more likely reason for them happening. Instead you try to conflate it with events that took place in America hundreds of years before. And to bring up the American project in comparison is such a boldfaced admission of the absurdity of this argument. America as a settler-colonial project was explicitly and inseperably engaged in the buisness of genocide and population transfer. That, CANNOT be, in good faith, compared with the USSR, which was not fundamentally based upon the expulsion, murder and colonisation of a foreign land.
I think you should be greatful to be called a fed, because if you are truly making this propaganda of your own will, without any monetary incentive from reactionary organisations it would make it all the more pathetic.
Valid point sure, but honestly we have a lot of videos about Palestine. Excellent ones - such as the ones from BadEmpanada. What more can be possibly said about the genocide that isn't already well known and frankly proven beyond all doubt? The Left are in complete agreement on Palestine, I know there are some truly comical and clownish "Israeli leftists" doing apologia but does anyone take them seriously?
@@OhNotThat For one, my point about no videos about Palestine is only semi-literal. What I'm really saying is that it reflects poorly on BadMouse that his focus is, during a time in history such as now, where for arguably the first time since the collapse of the international communist movement in the 90s, there is significant motion in the direction of leftism, (specifically into Marxist-Leninist consciousness) on attacking Marxism. This focus on not only levying bad-faith criticisms of the Soviet experiment, but on trying to take down Marxism-Leninism as a theory, not by analysing the theory as it was, and is applied, but instead by pointing to cherrypicked examples of bad things that happened in the legal boundaries of the USSR, without ever clarifying exactly how, or well, even generally how they are even related to Marxism-Leninism in a bizarre attempt to discredit it.
And for two, I envy your feeling that the left is at all unified on Palestine. There are a depressing many who claim to be anti-Zionist and simply are not. I'm sure you're familiar with the LonarBoxes and Vaushes of the world... sadly its not just delusional Israeli leftist apologists.
This video to me is just yet another anarchist who's main focus as a 'leftist' is, oddly enough, just constantly attacking Marxists. I would give them more of a pass if they could point to a single successful society they established. But it just seems that in reality all they are capable of doing is being a nuisance who fight against the revolution... Cough cough, Spanish anarchists wrecking in the republican faction and Makhnovists, let alone the modern 'anarchists' like Vaush and his ilk.
If the Indian removal was Genocidal, then so was Stalins deportations. The ML system treated its indigenous peoples with appalling callousness. Maybe the actions aren't linked with ideology but Russia engaged in settler colonialism and the USSR sure didn't improve things to much
@@alanritchie7850 Saying that it did not improve things too much is just utterly denialist. This is a perfect example of how these other so called "leftist" currents utterly betray the working class movement, it inevitabely leads to these sort of delusions where you would genuinely try to argue that Tsarist Russia was the same as the USSR in terms of its treatment of minorities. Not only that not being true, but even if it were, which it isnt, this is the same argument that the imperialists make against communism by using Pol Pot or the Shining Path of Peru as examples of how "socialism fails", both nominally ML movements which betrayed their supposed ideological tennants entirely, and if you read any of their writing are in complete opposition to the views of Marxism-Leninism. I don't think you would deny that the USSR made unprecedented leaps in human developement, and its dissolusion was an utter catastrophy for its population and even humanity as a whole, if you do deny these things then I really see no point in even arguing with you. But that being said, those advances can be said to be unique and resultant from the application of Marxism-Leninism, there is a clear link between ideology and practise, this, once again, cannot be said for the deportation policies. Your argument lost to a comment I made before you even wrote yours somehow.
Engles talked abut regressive nations whcih will vanish in revoltion thinking of south slavs in austo hungary.ironically they were mroe revolutionary than his preffered nations-hungarians and austrians.
I'm not sure if I understood it right, so the 0.25% death rate of the deported was right, but the 10% death toll was post being settled?
So if you just count the initial movement during the transports, then it would apparently be 0.25%, which is the only number Furr references. When they arrived they were faced with widespread difficulties relating to infrastructure and supplies which led to many many more dying.
It's the right answer to the wrong question. It's the answer to "how many people died in transport?", but not "how many people died due to being transported?"
The 10-25% are completely made up
@@BadMouse101Almost as if this was the case for ALL people during the war
@@BadMouse101 isn't there an alternative to this figure cause it does indeed seem quite low and i'd be surprised if the transitional conditions were so "good" only for them to be left in the middle of nowhere and starve
As an ex-ML, my personal observation is that this movement is more or less a cult where terminally online people get together and talk about how great Stalin was. If I had to guess most of them are probably either still in school, or 30 year olds with no friends.
If you're an "ex-ML" then why are you just belching out the same exact criticisms that people who were always anti-ML?
You are not an "ex-ML," you were in some unserious Discord server for a few months and are now convinced you're an expert on Marxism-Leninism.
"Ex-ML" in this context meaning not even being a leftist at any point lmao
"ex-ML" lmfao
"ex-ML" or a person who was in a meme discord server for a month and is now convinced they are an expert on Marxism-Leninism?
Maybe your first video should have been the one where you explain why we should care. There's hardly anything here that can't be handwaved with historical comparisons. The French revolution was also accompanied by countless atrocities, yet I doubt you'd reconsider democracy because of it.
Perhaps socialism should not be implemented through a system where the head of the one legal party can deport entire ethnic groups with the stroke of a pen.
Except you literally DESTROYED worker council democracy before privatizing in this revolution you countered
Well the main difference is that you destroyed worker democracy
You should care because the bolsheviks betrayed and destroyed worker democracy, not created it.
Tactical nihilism
I was hoping you can continue the series, like dealing with the Great Purge myth/defenses, Mao’s “flawed” cultural revolution, or Marxists shutting down unconventional left ideologies for not being in the standards of dialectical materialism…
Anark's "The State is Counterrevolutionary" part 3 goes over China + the cultural revolution!
Cultural Revolution was a good idea, but unfortunately it was always a fight between two factions and not a bottom up thing. Basically it didn't go far enough.
Most MLs don't view the CR positively. It is mostly MLMs who view it positively.
The cultural revolution is quite ironically completely misunderstood by almost everyone so we do need a more comprehensive deep dive. The best reductionist way to sum it up is that it was the Chinese Communist version of MAGA, quite ironically to what Americans believed the Cultural Revolution was absolutely swimming in easy access to guns and the right to armed defense. So no doubt americans would actually greatly sympathise with them haha
@@OhNotThat Uh, no, while the CR was bad, it was nothing like the imperialist racist genocide enthusiasts that are MAGA. It was bad because it misdiagnosed China's problem, not recognizing it was due to underdevelopment but believed it was due to sociocultural factors in the superstructure. It was bad because it's false diagnosis led to a false solution, Mao basically called for anarchism, encouraging everyone to overthrow their higher-ups, which led to a breakdown in societal order and complete chaos, resulting in large number of deaths.
14:11 What? Are you saying the bourgeoisie shouldn't be oppressed at the barrel of the gun by the proletariat?
Remember from Marx:
"When our time comes, we shall make no excuses for the terror."
Yes, he is a moralist. Their whole schtick is that they are morally superior to everyone else. They do not support any real-world leftist movement, they just sit in their armchair criticizing all leftist movements of the past (in this case, even those that have long since collapsed and is mocked by the world!) as not being morally beneath them. It helps feed the moralist ego, it makes them feel powerful even though they in reality have no power at all and nobody cares about them or what they preach. Growing into adulthood is realizing that individually we are all kind of losers and in order to be successful at all we have to acknowledge we are powerless and have to work with movements that are imperfect and don't entirely align with our values in order to nudge the world into a better place.
Ah yes, the bourgeoisie of... *checks notes* rural indigenous communities.
You missed the third part of the sentence. "You cannot claim a monopoly on progress, THEN influence and suppress at the barrel of a gun, AND FINALLY act surprised when people turn against you to whatever alternative is available." Marx (and Marxists) don't act surprised when the bourgeoisie turn against them.
Thats a bit of a dogmatic interpretation. Yes we won't make excuses for revolutionary violence against our oppressors, thats quite a different story when you're talking about potential allies, or in this case people groups that were not ideologically fascist.
@BadMouse101 "Unity is a great thing and a great slogan. But what the workers’ cause needs is the unity of Marxists, not unity between Marxists, and opponents and distorters of Marxism"
172.0000 koreans, whats up with that weird number formatting? Is it 1.720.000? or 172.000
Blimey how did I miss that.
It's 172,000
Sloppy job CIA.
(for tone deaf tankies, i am joking)
In addition to your point about the portrayal of minority groups as disloyal, I would point out that this portrayal often comprised the demonization of other leftwing revolutionary movements, by falsely comparing them to the N4zi's. Good video btw, glad to see more sources than the first two! (:
Sorry dude, but Trotskyism is a coherent political ideology. If you becoma trotskyist just because you dont like Stalin you're a fool. You are correct about the issues with Marxist-Leninist canon. However these beliefs are not part of marxism-leninism, they're a historical interpretation. You can absolutely be a Marxist-Leninist and acknowledge the bad things the USSR did. It's just that the most prominent ML's in media don't do that. Apart from that, why does the soviet union matter to modern ML's to begin with? It fell 35 years ago and we're a political movement, not a fanclub for a former country. The last segment of this video really shows how obsessed with aesthetics you seem to be. It should not matter to you if many ML's have historical revisionist takes. It should also not matter to you whether anarchists are mostly edgy teens. You should judge ideologies by their content and not by the people that typically share them.
Movements are composed of people, and their ideas, even when misinformed. We act more like a fan club than a political movement. That's the problem. And your ideas are misinformed or at the very least severely undercooked.
The Stalin vs Trotsky stand off ended when Trotsky got the pick-axe
Very important topic - but what about the Pontic Greeks?
Å small number of Kola Norwegians were deported during the war only because Norway was occupied by Germany.
Why is there no mention of the deported Greek population?
"irregardless" uggh. 🤦♂
There was a really good documentary interviewing the korean deportees in kazakhstan and their descendents in the 90s... Let me find it...
ruclips.net/video/5jwsSTNVQwY/видео.htmlfeature=shared
Minor point (2:22) but if 180 years of separation is enough to make the volga germans unlikely to serve the nazis than surely several millenia of separation would make the koreans unlikely to serve the japanese.
Thank you for your hard work and i look forward to whatever is next :)
Marxism-Leninism definition is not clear at all. I personally think of it as 3 completely different things:
1) Current RUclipsrs declaring themselves to be Marxist-Leninist as a way to do 2 things: first pay homage to the former state of the USSR because they feel they've been victim of massive brain washing campaign against it and, secondly, being mostly millennials, they're seeing a post-USSR world becoming a living nightmare so they wanna be explicit and defy that as narrative as bluntly as possible. I think that's mostly a good thing.
2) In the 20th century, mostly its second half, Marxist-Leninist became the state ideology of the USRR and is responsible for sabotaging and curtailing true socialism perhaps more than anything else ever was.
3) Marxism as interpret by Vladimir Lenin by adapting it to the Czarist Russian conditions of late 19th, early 20th century. It can be argued that this is the most successful form of Marxism to date and I would like to see someone making a criticism of it based on Lenin's writings themselves.
I'll go into that a bit in the next two videos, but for now, it lends itself back to the general critique of state socialism and the Vanguard.
It doesn't foster the traits within people for realising communism, instead putting energy up the hierarchy of the party state structure.
New conditions relating to the ruling party are created which creates a shift in dynamics between them and those they claim to represent.
Centralisation doesn't create an apparatus whereby there are incentives towards Communism, the state only has incentives to continue consolidating itself and fighting back against resistance, be that nominally Capitalist or Socialist.
Honest question. How does the revolution stay alive without a state to repress any leftover bourgeoisie and other reactionary elements?
@@batobatice22 Its not that that isn't a valid question, its just that if you take upon yourself the understanding that building socialism as a state project will never lead to the ends you seek then you can't just say "But we need to defend the revolution" and presuppose a state.
One answer might be that we need to seriously reanalyse the nature of what we consider a revolution, not simply a dive for state power but rather a prefigurative build up of decentralised power so that when those threats do arrive we will be prepared for them already.
@@batobatice22 Depends on the situation of the revolution
@@BadMouse101 I see, so you're going to the genesis of the whole thing, the Marxism-Leninism definition number 3. Well, in this case I really think the critique is not against Lenin's ideas themselves, but their improper application to completely different context (nowadays USA or UK instead of old czarist Russia).
16:48 would like that poster of Yuri Gagarin
Thank you for never ceasing to challenge my worldview. I have learned so much because of you.
Absolutely horrid comparison between native americans and the groups that were deported. In the case of the American independence war, the native americans KNEW that the americans would keep colonizing more and more west however the british found this unprofitable, so clearly they would support the british. In what world is supporting nazis whose ENTIRE GOAL was to colonize eastern europe be in that same vain. Native americans fought with british in hopes of stopping colonization, and the collaborating minorties (not saying they all collaborated) fought FOR COLONIZATION, what the actual fuck is that argument.
what a joke of a comment. How exactly did they know? they could see the future? Did the british really mean it when they said they didn't want to expand and the natives "just knew" that was true?
@@El_Rebelde_Bro didn't study the American Revolution. Literally one of the reasons America revolted was because the settlers were refused western colonization because the British government decided to create a Native American zone west of the Appalachian mountains. As for if the British would withhold their promises, they couldn't have known but they KNEW then and there, the American settlers wanted to expand west while the British government wanted a Native American autonomous zone. In the end, the British deal was still better than the American ambition. The long-term British goals were to maintain friendly relations with the Indians and support the valuable fur trade based in Montreal.
also, the chechens returned to their land in 1957, but i wonder why he didn't say that.
And they knew this full well? How are you so sure of that? Considering also the past 2 years in which the USSR deliberately toned down the anti-fascist sentiment as a result of the pact.
Like I said, collaboration was largely an opportune affair, just as I'm sure it was for many people in Western Europe as well, especially for the women. They used it to help themselves survive given the situation.
@@BadMouse101 You said in the video that the USSR punishing these groups for collaborating is akin to the white nationalist arguments that manifest destiny was deserved because the natives fought with britain. My argument was about this claim. I understand the rest of the claims within the video but this one claim was really confusing to me. Whether these groups knew it or not, the arguments are different, in the case of the deportations the argument is how to deal with rebellious elements (I DO NOT ARGEE WITH COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT), while in manifest destiny is just about finding an excuse to do genocide and colonization.
"Tankie discourse" is totally productive and helpful right now. I mean, in a time of rising fascism, I can't imagine anything more helpful than leftist infighting. Good job, bro! You're so smart, and you deserve a cookie!
You are a cultist. It’s never ever a good time to criticize ethnic deportations to you. People who support ethnic deportations are not on the left, they are fascists. Social chauvinists.
Tankies are Khrushchevite revisionists
Well i'm sorry, you're right in these trying times of "rising fascism" we unlike MLs cannot live up your legacy of working so hard to supply tons and tons of raw material and resources to the fascists like you guys do :)
@OhNotThat first of all, I'm an anarchist. That said, MLs never provided tons and tons of raw materials and resources to fascists, so wtf kind of liberal revisionism are you on about? The historical fact is that the Allies would not have won WWII without the USSR. That is indisputable. A country that was ideologically ML did more to defeat the Nazis than any other Allied power.
Finally, while I have plenty of disagreements with MLs, they are my allies in the fight against fascism, unlike liberals who are at best a roadblock trying to keep us from fighting fascists, or at worst (and most commonly) literally complicit in fascism's rise. If your focus right now is to push communist infighting, you're performing liberal wrecker shit whether you realize it or not. And if that's what you're doing, you are also my enemy regardless of what ideological position you claim and you can fuck right off.
@@jackneison Revisionism? Ever hear of the 1939 German-Soviet Trade and Credit Agreement, how about it's successor German-Soviet Commercial Agreement 1940, not that either? how about the 1941 German-Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement?
The resources sent to the fascists by the MLs include: 1.6 m tons of grain, 900k tons of oil, 200k tons of cotton, 140k tons of manganese, 20k tons of chrome, 18k tons of rubber, and many 500ks tons of iron ore and pig iron. Tell me, why are MLs such habitual LIARS? And why are you so bad at this?
1:48 wait since when Estonians not Baltic?
They're Baltic States, but generally speaking Estonians are not the same as Lithuanians and Latvians. The latter 2 speak the Baltic branch of Indo-European, whereas Estonians speak a Finno-Ugric tongue of the Uralic family.
@@BadMouse101 Yeah their language is Finno-Uralic, not Indo-European. But that's doesn't make them not real Baltic. From my understanding, the language family is named after the country group, which is named after the sea.
Love the voice
thank you
5:10 damn those are 3 really stupid alternatives
its quite simple, use a marxian analysis to see the class characteristic of these peoples at those specific times to figure out if they were progressive or reactionary nations. if in a region like belarus for example the gentry is made up of polish nobles then polish nationalism has a reactionary character while belarusian farmers or russian workers constitute a progressive character. if the members of a nation begin enmass joining reactionary armies as soldiers, supply reactionary forces, fight against the workers movement by attacking unionization, or oppose party control of the labour movement preventing the coalescing of workers economic demands into a political program to express the will of the working class as a class then that is a reactionary nation. history has shown with the gaels joining jacobism to restore divine right of rule rather than popular sovereignty, the bretons creating the chouannerie to fight against the french revolution as it brought feudal privilege to an end, and with the basques supporting carlism and attacking liberalization that time and again small peoples sometimes get used as fodder by agents of reaction. the question then just becomes what are reasonable actions to take to supress reaction from these people
“Reactionary nations”
You are Adolf Hitler.
Some national groups are... hereditarily... reactionaries...?
Ivan Serov, is that you?
you’re a waste of time
20k Crimeans enlisted in Red Army defected to Nazis. They served as police and deathcamp exterminators. Removing such group from the population would mean the genocide. Peasant-patriarch society won't last without males.
Returning soldiers would ask questions? My sister was raped by this polizai, my mom died in deathcamp, wheres no justice?
And those soldiers indeed took care the justice in their own hands (case of Baltic states).
Most importantly. After liberating Crimea, that army stopped and started to grow its strength. Preparing for Turkey and Unthinkable-like operations.
So basicly, it was a prewar preparation.
Temporality of the means didnt happened due to lack of resources.
Sad situation, sadder video though.
Cultist parrot of Grover Furr. You are a reactionary and an opportunist.
cite your sources
@alanritchie7850 On deathcamps in Cremea?
On operation Unthinkable?
On the bulking up the military in Cremea after liberation?
Etc.
Those are separate topics, which you can research on your own. Pykhalov's "Why Stalin deported nations" would be a good start.
seems liek crimenas didnt belongde to USSR.Same for chechnesss.Well emrie have troubles with mainting loyalty of some of opressed groups who are there agaisnt their will.
@@himpim642 seems like Nazis were oppressed and didn't belong to USSR. May be don't belong to the face of the Earth either 😊
you ignore the fact capitalist countries did this with even less reason, look at FDR who put japanese amercians into camps, or the british with the boers, may problems of marxism is merely capitalist projection. i hope no one takes you seriously
The difference? Modern Liberals aren't scrambling to defend these actions as being necessary or justified (though you can probably find crazies online who will say exactly that).
@@timthetomatoman6064 they dont defend the thief of land in north america?
>oh yeah but capitalists did it too!
stellar defense, Comrade. I award you the Order of Lenin for this valiant effort.
"But what about..."
This video is about the USSR and not the USA or the British. Just because he didn't bring up those camps doesn't mean he supports the capitalists, it should be quite obvious he doesn't.
This is the frustrating thing about criticizing the USSR or China, people just instantly assume you're a Liberal if you criticize them, and it's childish.
"A socialist regime cannot be defended by proclaiming that they did the same as a capitalist regime would do in similar circumstances. The criteria must be higher as the goals it is meant to embody and pursue are meant to be higher -- they are meant to reflect the goal of human liberation. To suggest that it can act the same as a regime dedicated to defending human exploitation and oppression shows a confusion of mind."
New theory just dropped 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Wow u surprised I was expecting another Hakim and BadEmpanada a clown to laugh at as I eat my food turns out you actually produced something of value even if we ideologically disagree nicely done.
Wow u surprised I was expecting another Hakim and BadEmpanada a clown to laugh at as I eat my food turns out you actually produced something of value even if we ideologically disagree nicely done.
Hi from Lithuania!
Both people are correct about most things especially BadEmpanada
@@kevinq8005bad empanada is better than the deprogrammers. He doesnt simp the soviet union or the chinese/russian etc
@@Blochr379 he is one of the best at doing history on RUclips
@@Blochr379 Nobody "simps" for the USSR or China or Russia, you lying pr1ck
The only reason you laugh at them is because you're a mindless tool with no actual response.
Again cheap production. How do you animate 😂 also this series only really effects "ml" s that are just like the beurocrats of china or the ussr and not real mls
Hundreds of hours in after effects and many more hours rendering.
@BadMouse101 there is a wrong number on a screen with only 5 numbers. In part one the borders of germany, russia, and aus-hun were wrong
Are the "real" ML's in the room with us, now?
General secretary Bob Avakian and Komissar Caleb Maupin?
Those alleged bureaucrats have accomplished more than you ever will.
@FengBaoYolotli by turning socialism's name into a curse? Sorry but the mutual aid will continue in actually feeding people instead of starving them.