• Joe
    link
    fedilink
    21 year ago

    In that case, it was totally worth the deadliest famine in history. :-P

    • Egon [they/them]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 year ago

      One famine one time is definitely preferable to the constant famines that exist under capitalism

      • Joe
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        If only the dead could argue their case…

        I think it is important to take a critical look at past tragedies and mistakes, and work hard to avoid them in the future. Unfortunately I fear that many people would repeat them if given the opportunity and it served their idealogical and/or selfish interests, unless it was more convenient to do the right thing.

        • Egon [they/them]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          91 year ago

          Yeah I also think we should look at the past and the present in order to create a better future, which is why I say one famine once is better than constant famines like we have now. How many millions die of hunger each year? How many have died at the hands of capitalism? How many are dying? While we have food available. This isn’t even to count for the famines that were enacted on purpose like those the british did in Ireland and in India.

          Meanwhile both the USSR and China managed to eliminate famine in regions that had been plagued by it since history could account for it. Were the countries perfect? Far from it. Pretending that they are somehow worse for eliminating famine while people are starving in countries with food on the shelves is ridiculous.

          • Joe
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            They eliminated famine in their own borders … after causing famine in their own borders. Congratulations, I guess?

            International efforts to deliver food aid to those most in need are typically hampered by war, not by a lack of food. Real supply & demand issues caused by poor yields, conflicts & other supply chain disruptions often drive up prices which hits the poor the hardest, but we haven’t had a global food shortage in a long time.

            • Egon [they/them]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              Both imperial Russia and Qing China were plagued by frequent famines, I don’t see how it is damnng that the PRC and the USSR had a famine in their early years of existence (after they’d fought long and drawn out wars), when they then never had famines again.
              There a millions of people starving in the us today, in Europe, in africa, in south America, in the middle east, in India. There is more than enough food, but somehow these capitalist countries have millions starving. The us has kids missing lunch in school, despite food being available in cafeterias.
              If one famine once in a region that used to be plagued by famines is too much for you, what does this ever-present famine then mean to you? What system do you suppose we make use of? Surely you cannot be a capitalist, since you are so staunchly against people starving

              • Joe
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                There are A LOT of problems out there, I agree. There is, however, a difference between destroying a country/regions ability to produce essential and strategic goods (like food, which has very immediate effect) through reckless decisions by authoritarian regimes (then throw in the Holodomor for fun), and inequality & a lack of social safety nets.

                Right now, the whole world has, through various efforts, has solved the global food production issue. That the soviets and china managed to solve this aspect of it too is not a win for socialism, especially given the mass starvation that accompanied their efforts, but I see (and correct me if I have misunderstood) you and others holding this up as some kind of tenuous proof of superiority.

                Social inequality and the denial of what I believe are basic human rights (food, housing, safety, access to healthcare, and freedom of expression), OTOH, are a continuing problem world-wide. I am much more interested in efforts here - both local, regional, and global.

                • Egon [they/them]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  31 year ago

                  Holodomor for fun.

                  The holodomor was the famine you doofus. It was also not an action taken deliberately by the Soviet government, and historians and scholars agree that the holodomor didn’t target Ukraine specifically - it was instead a famine that.hit the Soviet Union as a result of years of war. Do you not know your hostory?

                  Right now, the whole world has, through various efforts, has solved the global food production issue.

                  Right now millions are starving, despite there being more than enough food.
                  You still haven’t answered the question.

                  That the soviets and china managed to solve this aspect of it too is not a win for socialism, especially given the mass starvation that accompanied their efforts, but I see (and correct me if I have misunderstood) you and others holding this up as some kind of tenuous proof of superiority.

                  That the soviets and the Chinese managed to eliminate famine in a region that had been plagued by famine since history could account for it, is not an immense accomplishment? Cope. It most certainly is, especially when you bring up the discussion of starvation.

                  Social inequality and the denial of what I believe are basic human rights (food, housing, safety, access to healthcare, and freedom of expression), OTOH, are a continuing problem world-wide.

                  Issues that the soviets and the Chinese made far greater dents I to, than anything modern capitalist governments do.

                  am much more interested in efforts here - both local, regional, and global.

                  So again, since you care so much about famines, and the current system has constant famines despite ha ing more than enough food available, and the soviets and the Chinese managed to eliminate famine, what system do you support? You surely cannot be a capitalist, since so many people are starving to death every day in capitalist countries. Millions are starving in the us alone. What do you think should be done?

                  • Joe
                    link
                    fedilink
                    1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    The holodomor was the famine you doofus. It was also not an action taken deliberately by the Soviet government, and historians and scholars agree that the holodomor didn’t target Ukraine specifically - it was instead a famine that.hit the Soviet Union as a result of years of war. Do you not know your hostory?

                    Here is where a disagreement starts. Yes, there was a widespread famine (and not just in Ukraine)… but it was, as recognised by many scholars, made far more deadly in parts of Ukraine by decrees from above. Collectivisation caused the wider famine, and callous decisions resulted in deliberate starvation of some. This is not something anyone should celebrate or diminish, even though the situation vastly improved in later years.

                    Note: I’m travelling today, so most responses will have to wait. Have a good one.

                    edit long after the fact: For future readers, here is a ukrainian viewpoint of the Holodomor: https://www.rferl.org/a/historican-anne-applebaum-interview-ukraine-holodomor-famine-stalin/28756181.html

        • KurtVonnegut [comrade/them]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 year ago

          I think it is important to take a critical look at past tragedies

          Those who care more about past tragedies than current tragedies don’t care at all. They’re just looking for some excuse to feel self-righteous.

          • Joe
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            Thanks for the quotable quote, but I didn’t say nor imply that.

      • Joe
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Is that another circle-jerk response? Say something useful, please.

        • Egon [they/them]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          Why should they? You do not engage with any of the responses of substance. When you choose not to engage in good-faith discussion, why you believe you deserve anything other than ridicule?

          • Joe
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I engage with an upvote. If there’s something more to be said, I’ll say it. An unfortunate side effect is that those good comments get drowned out by nonsense initiated by … hexbears, and then further upvoted by hexbears. It doesn’t seem like an effective strategy to me, but if that is what y’all want to do, you can. It will probably lead to more of the same, along with more complaints, instances defederating, and personal user & instance blocks.

            • Egon [they/them]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              You are already engaged in a discussion, which you engaged by posting and then responding to posts. Your responses are then show. To be in bad faith, since you are not willing to interact with the argumens other users present in good faith. This is typical of you libs, but it is an unfortunate side effect that good and educating discussion gets drowned out by you uneducated idiots that think a link to Wikipedia means anything… Good education is drowned out by you smuglords that fail to realise civility is a two-way street. These snide comments you make are then further expounded by other snide idiots, which further muddies the waters and ruins discussion, it doesn’t seem like an effective strategy to me, because you get called out on it, that is what you all want to do and sadly the only thing that can be done in response is to not take you seriously until you either get too hurt that your idiotic comments results in similarly asinine responses or you get too hurt from the people calling you on your bullshit and you defederate PIGPOOPBALLS

              • Joe
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                And now you turn to name calling and making further assumptions about me? Sigh.

                There are threads that end with good comments or arguments, either because they are solid (eg. class struggle is never ending) or funny. They don’t need me to pat them on the head.

                • Egon [they/them]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  2
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I have yet to call you a name or make an assumption - I’ve pointed out the actions you’ve taken. “You smuglords” clearly being in the plural. Please work on your reading comprehension.
                  If you think having your behaviour pointed out to you is “name calling” consider wether you’re just a piece of shit.
                  Also again you refuse to engage with argument presented to you. Since you refuse good faith discussion, why do you think you deserve anything other than ridicule? You’re clearly a moron

                  • Joe
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    “you libs”, “you smuglords”… do you really think that pluralizing an assumption or insult makes it less of one? This could be some weird use of the English language that I’m not familiar with, but it reads the same to me, and comes across as rude and dismissive. I have engaged extensively with you here and elsewhere … in good faith. I have not resorted to insults. I’ve left open the possibility for simple misunderstandings, giving you the possibility to explain. I don’t think you are arguing in bad faith, but I suspect that you have reached some limit and are falling back to bad habits.

                    An observation of mine: You and some other hexbears seem to throw around the term “libs” as an insult whenever someone doesn’t agree with you, and often prematurely. To me, this comes across as a cop-out, and as a way of stroking your own egos without adding value.

                    I also think that you have developed your own “common knowledge” in relative isolation, and often have trouble explaining/justifying it outside of the hexbear community. Instead, a lot seems meme-ified and is repeated without thought.

                    I will continue to encourage people to explain or argue their case. I will also continue trying to be open and inclusive, and advocating for dialogue.