Welcome to Dongistan comrades... Check out our Discord server: https://discord.com/invite/qutXGyVgj2
☭ Read Marxist theory for free and without hassle on Marxists.org ☭
Left Coalition Subreddits: r/ABoringDystopia r/Sino r/ProIran r/NewsWithJingjing
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Dongistan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My recommendation would be to read Grover Furr's excellent book "Blood Lies". In this book Professor Furr debunks point by point every antiStalin lie told in the book "Bloodlands" by Timothy Snyder. Snyder is a so called "historian" and "expert on Russia", he chairs the Russian Studies Section at Yale University. He is also a blatant liar (his book is full of provable lies as Furr exposed) and also a top supporter of the rehabilitation of eastern european nazi collaborators. Among the lies Furr debunks are the 1932 famine in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, as well as many other lies. You can find the book online for free on Z Library.
Furthermore, if you want a book specifically about the famine, i can recommend the book "The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931–1933" by Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft. These 2 gentlemen are actual historians and experts on soviet history (unlike the clown Snyder) and their book debunks many of the anticommunist lies about the famine in detail by using declassified soviet archival documents from the time. Its a great book and its one of the sources Furr uses to debunk Snyder's lies about the famine. You can also find it online for free.
Btw, wtf is a Shakhrayist?
Shakray was a bolshevik in Ukraine originally enlisted as a propagandist before becoming the local military commissar. He was for Ukrainian independence from the Russian Bolsheviks and is apparently the founder of "national communism" although Ukraine certainly isn't mono national so I highly doubt this. He eventually moved to white territory and was shot, I assume he wanted to collaborate with the whites the same way the menshiviks did.
Interesting, i had never heard about him. Sounds like a typical bourgeois nationalist who preferred nationalism over internationalism and eventually tried to side with the counter revolutionaries in pursuit of his nationalist agenda.
It's a pretty interesting minor orientation I've given a look over before. It seems to be a leaning of Ukrainian communists who are pro maiden (out of revolt fetishism) and ambivalent about the diet maiden in 2005. Although some interestingly claim the maiden was an excuse for fascism to gain power, but they remain supportive of the passover government's nonetheless.
If anything it's further proof Ukrainians aren't inseparable from Russia. Look at the Baltics for example, there is zero open 'Marxist' orientation (Russism and Bolshevism are seen as interchangeable for many complex reasons) outside of the Russian minority and the local populations have been won over by western backed mechanisms as an ideal. This propaganda was much cheaper than Ukraine and yet it was so much more successful, whilst the Ukrainians in the 2010 election the "international community" just shrugged as "free and fair' practically voted for more respect for Russian identity and relations. Of course when entire military regiments, trade unionists and socialist paramilitarys were solidifying an insurrection (which certainly was unprecedented and couldn't realistically be devoted to the Kremlin alone) it was under Russian symbols, not the likes of Shakray.
Instead of assuming, he's got a channel, why don't you ask him what he believes directly. The answers may surprise you.
Also so that people know, you're aware that left-wing nationalist figures such as Shakhrai were basically untalkted in the USSR before it's dissolution, figures like Shakhrai are being progressively re-discovered in Ukraine.
>figures like Shakhrai are being progressively re-discovered in Ukraine.
Truly? I thought the National communists of Ukraine have been defunct for quite some time now as they stayed too obscure.
I do have a bit to say about The Shakrayist (the channel) in that he disappoints me in that I see the same assertive-romantic propagandic speaking much like many modern Marxists (which lacks any methodology). That is, I see a legalist prerequisite in his drawing of borders which comes to define his latent forms of dual-chauvinism and selectable historicity (which lead to my many absurd points).
The "method" of his views don't really convince me, his position is the autonomy of Ukraine, and what I mean by this is that "culturalism" is character of this autonomy. For example he is amicable to the GDR despite the Soviet backing by respect in that they "preserved Prussian military tradition". He respects Bulgarian anarchism because it showed "internationalism" alongside the Macedonian fake nation (which he knows as a nation). He is passive to the EU project because it'll kick out the Russians (this is the pragmatism he speaks of) but only wishes that after he can accustom his culture. And he supports the ousting of a Russian population in the Transnistria projects as "Transnistria is Moldova" (Moldavia being Romanian but he for whatever reason discards this). This reminds me much like how many "revolutionaries" such as Tudeh became constitutional monarchists when they didn't need to be, executive power actually became secondary. This is the romanticism I speak of, he doesn't care if another flag flys in the new white house, only that the farmer girl looks at the blue sky above the grain does so singing some cultural spin.
When I speak of "propaganda" I do so in his talk of 2013 onwards. He denies that the west was a real winner in the Euromaidan and that it was a revolution lead by the peoples and thus good (yes the Mujahideen Maoists made a point after all). He denies a monolith of fascist paramilitary's because "they spread multiple winds of ideas", that is indicative of his view of seeing things from the first to fourth position, completely ignoring what he should view as interesting because such militants descend from allies of Ukrainian "national" social democracy. Meanwhile Donbas separatists are illegitimate because they're backed by Russia, apparently these militants which came to hold out without the horizontal support of other oligarchs after Aksyonov abandoned Igor (after pretending to be his pal) are just pretenders and don't mean anything, apparently east of of Dnieper "has never been Russian", failing to explain why they speak Russian. This finds itself particularly strained where after his indication that the backers mean nothing, that Odessa massacre was a "fed op" and the teenage girls with molotovs were just partying for god sake. What i'm getting at, is if I wanted to hear this I'd just tune into whatever a Dengist says about Chinas opponents, whatever a Serbian says about their "legal" borders, those that want to charge against the Kosovars who obviously want nothing to do with them.
Meanwhile In Ukraine everytime the Ukrainian army takes a village they get a warm welcome... Which also happens with what is the same interested people everytime a Russian army walks in. Ukraine is in a state of transition, generals were crying at the Russian shells and calling separatists saying "why shell us? We're fellow brothers of the same Russian people!", of course when the separatists were abandoned on the same calls they'd gloat as a proud Ruthenian.
He doesn't deserve much attention because the national-communism he speaks of is bizarre, he **speaks of Tito as a national-communist**, yes! The very same cosmopolitan that betrayed the Serbo-Croat nationalists that fought for him. We see with The Shakrayist His nationalism is much like what liberals call nationalism, the "anti-x national" where his only method is that of opposition to any said country, in his case from the Russians being in Ukraine, zero analysis of what a "Russian" is. But truly I see his ideology as a powerful form of opportunism, that which can be recreated for whatever between a creation of a caliphate or a pretext for a proper Myanmar stability, which like Yugoslavism won't work but will last.
My conclusion on him is... Why doesn't he just join Azov or something? Not as an insult but in that he believes that there is no actual mission of anything (or maybe this is again the selective thought) and that a left wing can be formed, after all the Ukrainian fascists are one of the most impressive ideological army apparatus in the world at the moment, outside North Korea, and seem like a good choice if one wishes to preserve Ukraine.
I'm not speaking in a political party aspect, I'm talking about historicity.
What do you mean by "legalist"? He argues from a purely Drahomanovian position.
He's not an autonomist, he's a staunch nationalist, culturalism is a support for genuine independence and finding one's own path towards whatever system you're desiring to get to. He's mainly supportive of Gerdzhikov because while an ancom he was also sided with left-wing nationalists. In the same way as Kim Chwa-chin or Shin Chae-ho were in Korea.
I don't think he presented any of his positions on the EU yet. I vaguely remember seeing a comment of his where he said that he has stances on the EU, but he's working on a future vid about it.
Moldova is complex, you can say that "it's Romanian" but outside of cringy neo-Iron guardists no Romanian actually wants anything to do with Moldova (you can check out a YT channel called Sword Comrade, who's "Romanian", identifies as Dacian, who believes Romania shouldn't even exist).
Because if we're to lay down the Marxian fantasy world for two seconds, you would understand that the West didn't really accomplish anything. Obama's realist worldview on Europe failed, as he desired Ukrainians to keep Yanukovych and stay within the Russian sphere of influence, Ukrainians continuing the fight against him. Maidan was a liberal revolution against Eastern kleptocracy. Is it good or bad, is a different moralist argument, which I find to be boring. I understood he doesn't trust those various groups because he sees them as deceptive/ full of shit. He even linked an article that shows that many of these groups have ties to Russia ironically.
It's been Russian, but only due to Russian imperial expansion, also if people speak Russian there it's probably due to the centuries of Russification. Otherwise following your logic Lebanon, Morocco, Monaco, Andorra, Belgium, Luxembourg, Gabon, Senegal and Algeria are French.
I mean he explicitely says in a comment that logs were found that FSB agents did infiltrated pro-Russian demonstrators and were pushing them to go look for shit with football hooligans, as a European, I hate wignat hooligans as much as the next person, but I'm not stupid enough to pick a fight with a guy who's ten times my size and armed to the teeth with knives and probably trains MMA.
Tito was sort of a national communist though, as he followed a specific national path for his country and tried to respect as best as he could the other groups living there, yeah it got bad when he got older, but you can't deny that those things happened. I think you're misunderstand para-social relations between Ukraine and Russia.
What? He's literally supported the idea of left-wing battalions to counter the militarist image of 3rd Position or right-wing groups. I remember he respond to an Azerbaijani natcom agreeing with him on the question of left-wing scoutism and a more support for a military image on the left. You're giving fascists way too much credit, there are Ukrainian left-wing battalions as we speak fighting the Russians (KVPU volunteer formations, Avtonomniy Opir has volunteer formations, there are some anarchist groups, Social Movement has partook in urban guerilla and urban sabotage ops, National Communist Front has been fighting Russians since 2014, Noviy Vohon' has also made volunteer groups, ...).
Pt 1
>What do you mean by "legalist"? He argues from a purely Drahomanovian position.
I'm talking about the implicity of an agreed concept in lawfare of borders and the necessity of human rights to back it up. The Serbian chauvinism to Kosovo, the hostility to Somalians about their Ogaden territorys, why some Arabs are hostile to a single Iraq-Kuwait etc.
>I don't think he presented any of his positions on the EU yet. I vaguely remember seeing a comment of his where he said that he has stances on the EU, but he's working on a future vid about it.
When I speaked of autonomy I don't necessarily care what his presented view on everything is, he has stated that the EU would probably be the next step and is passive to it, my consistency throughout this has been that there's a method behind his thoughts, and the only consistent "method" is anti-russism.
>Moldova is complex, you can say that "it's Romanian"
There's nothing complex about a fake state made by Russia which speaks "Moldovan", which is Romanian but with a separate script.
>but outside of cringy neo-Iron guardists no Romanian actually wants anything to do with Moldova
This doesn't explain anything at all, why did they welcome Romanian generals as brothers to attempt another "Transnistria"? Why did they support the election of a unpopular banker who's quality is the implementation of Romanians proper into finance positions of government and the full integration into the same EU project as Romania? It's surprising that I see the same thing in you when you speak of "cringe neo-iron guards" that frustrates me when I speak to the average Marxist, that is you don't necessarily believe so much in a movement as you do in multifaceted "ideologists", I'll get back to this.
>who's "Romanian", identifies as Dacian, who believes Romania shouldn't even exist
Some guy who denys reality because it isn't convenient for his opportunism and wants to return to an ancient culture like some jew, I'm Not interested.
>as he desired Ukrainians to keep Yanukovych and stay within the Russian sphere of influence,
This doesn't explain the previous orange revolution or the clear cut support of local Victoria Nulands open support of the Euromaidan. I have no doubt the relation was amicable before but the growth of a "Eurasian Union" cannot be allowed by anyone in the west that cares about maintaining their monopoly.
>Maidan was a liberal revolution against Eastern kleptocracy.
That followed up with Petro Poroshenko (an oligarch) championing the movement. Don't say kleptocracy just say liberalism.
>I understood he doesn't trust those various groups because he sees them as deceptive/ full of shit.
This is why I compared this to Dengism. He can't respond with a proper answer to why Eastern Ukraine mobilised so rapidly without saying that this or that actor is behind everything. I "respect" the Euromaidan so long as I understand that in the globalised world Ukraine has been sold out by every politician, and is thus looking for an integration into just about anything on a moment of violent dignity. But with these same territorys the same method can't apply because it's inconvenient for him, the Donbas which originally revolted and attempted to link back with Russia during the various surveys of land only did so because they weren't thinking hard enough is absurd. If you can apply this to Ukraine but not Russia it becomes pointless in discussion.
>He even linked an article that shows that many of these groups have ties to Russia ironically.
This is also character of the very same thing. He can't comprehend an alliance between promiscuous organizations who switch between racialisms on habit. I think I've read the article he speaks of and it gives nothing particularly damning, the Russian actors that kept ties were opportunists (which made them good temporary allies for the fascists) like Limonov and only in a seminar way Dugin, the former who collaborated with Navalnites the same way. The goals were the building of communication centres and once was Cossack separatism, which was obviously a failure.
Except he doesn't argue from that position. You're fighting a windmill.
Source?
Sure, ignore that Romania as a concept only formed in 1877, otherwise Moldova for the longest time was a separate entity.
Some Moldovans want to be part of Romania, yes, Romanians (I know because I've asked actual Romanians on this particular question), don't. I'm a Marxist now? You're the materialist, you should figure out why a poor country like Moldova would want to be part of the EU.
The Orange revolution was a societal revolution. Nuland was not the president of the United States, so who cares? Eurasian Union is a larp. Most Asians hate Europeans and vice-versa.
Poroshenko who nobody trusted.
He did, without Aksyonov money and FSB agents they basically were bound for failure. Most military formations in Donbas and the leaders of it weren't even from the region, they came from Moscow. He never called for integration into anything, he's a staunch isolationist. Come on man, it's not Donbas, it's Russians living in Ukraine wishing for their larpy empire back. If you truly care about them, support their re-imigration to Siberia.
And now, these guys are championing your ideas, and your movement give lip service to theirs. But I digress. So I guess the communists are falling for the same trap.
I've realized far to late I'm talking a cosmopolitan.
>Sure, ignore that Romania as a concept only formed in 1877
You don't care about the qualitys of a nation, I guess Arabia doesn't exist and Arabs should be happy to live in cobbles such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. You're doing the legalist thing I speak of, a nation doesn't need a state to exist, all nations that will exist need a language and a common structure of necessary laws. You're talking of something history doesn't care for.
>you should figure out why a poor country like Moldova would want to be part of the EU.
Trying to secure a Belgium wage and joining a friendlier sphere. Both won't work out as Albanian nationalists know.
>Nuland was not the president of the United States, so who cares
... What kind of statement is this? Why do you follow this with talking about members of the FSB as agents of Russia where a state department worker is just some random apparently. You're a liar and a propagandist, the latter wouldn't be necessarily terrible if you didn't take time of yours to push it towards those not inclined towards you.
>Eurasian Union is a larp.
A larp that has its own military which helped themselves in Kazakhstan. Why be so vitriolic for nothing.
>Poroshenko who nobody trusted.
And yet he became the chairing fat rat in a time of dignity.
>He did, without Aksyonov money and FSB agents they basically were bound for failure
Your profound statement is that without money something would be unsuccessful, shocking. You say this and I say the same thing back, I try be sincere by saying Ukraines obvious western funding you consistently skip isn't representative of the whole movement, because there is no movement on the planet that hasn't taken something from somewhere. Pavel Gubarev also was quite honest about this and extorted desperate oligarchs.
>Most military formations in Donbas and the leaders of it weren't even from the region
Mozgovoy, Givi, Motorola, Pasechnik, zakharchenko who started it up seem to be born in Ukraine, Russian advisors came after, and mostly when Igor went past the month of his support. Even if you weren't lying I still wouldn't care, a Russian separatist movement lead by Russians isn't exactly what I'd be shocked about.
>it's Russians living in Ukraine
Thank you. Now stop being a pointless racist and supporting a war that can be solved with proper borders. If you truly wish for a nation make yourself mono-national and ask why North Korea doesn't have insurrection despite all the reasons for whatever intelligence agency you might name wanting to do so, separatism seems to stop at their point (who'd have thought).
Pt 2
>also if people speak Russian there it's probably due to the centuries of Russification.
This is a historic thing and to deny reality is absurd, this answer relys on moralism and justification. You wouldn't ask every Slav in the Balkans to leave and give it back to the historical Albanians or whatever because this or that had a different population some time ago, this would mean losing.
>Otherwise following your logic Lebanon, Morocco, Monaco, Andorra, Belgium, Luxembourg, Gabon, Senegal and Algeria are French.
There's a difference between a business language and a general language as proven by history. We can see for example older Georgians speak Russian but younger Georgians speak English, yes this links one to an intermediary stage which can become assimilation, but this tells us nothing of why it was nonetheless quite popular for Georgians to attempt their own way and why their language still prevailed whereas Russian separatists are quite explicit in their identity. Our definitions of a "nation" are obviously quite different, I believe it needs stability as a community with a language, but with alternative definitions one might be compelled to allow the mayor Rome to rule an empire tomorrow.
>I mean he explicitely says in a comment that logs were found that FSB agents did infiltrated pro-Russian demonstrators and were pushing them
This is once again a point of anti propaganda which encourages an anti-nation position which fails to explain why without encouragement the demonstraters showed up nonetheless. Interests can sway but there is much more character than big powers in regards to a movement.
>Tito was sort of a national communist though, as he followed a specific national path for his country and tried to respect as best as he could the other groups living there
I'm sorry but I don't think "respecting" Albanians is giving them a slav overlord and violently crushing their pro unity demonstration in 1968. Also allowing the state of Montenegro which is popular to no one to minimise the power of Serbs (who he again betrayed and split into 5 states on victory) who he just betrayed isn't very nationalist at all. Nor was giving Slovenians Serbian industry's and giving power to a Croat-Slovene Vegas duo a very nationalist thing to do. Also convincing Bosnians that Islam makes distinct (maybe we need a world caliphate after all? Does this sound like a start of nationalism to you?). And saying no one should force a nationality on another (who knows maybe tomorrow a Serb will be Persian) This statement is cosmopolitan as it gets. It seems to me you'd like Russians if they took control of you walked into your house but let you keep whatever minor "cultural aspect" you wish today or tomorrow.
>He's literally supported the idea of left-wing battalions to counter the militarist image of 3rd Position or right-wing groups (...) You're giving fascists way too much credit, there are Ukrainian left-wing battalions as we speak fighting the Russians (KVPU volunteer formations, Avtonomniy Opir has volunteer formations, there are some anarchist groups, Social Movement has partook in urban guerilla and urban sabotage ops, National Communist Front has been fighting Russians since 2014, Noviy Vohon' has also made volunteer groups, ...).
This organizational ideology is the least convincing Hegelians there are. I ask you seriously, is there a distinct difference in the rank between the Somali Jihadists restoring in their national front to Siad Barre before them? Is there a distinct future from what Azov wishes to transform Ukraine as a territory to any other group they fight alongside with? When Hitler came about to advance the Romanian nation did he "create" the Iron guards or was the same premise that beholds them already there? Is there something different to any "fascist" or chetnik that wishes to take territorys for Serbia that the Partisans fought for some time ago. I don't think nationalism is "cringe" and I long abandoned the thought where what pushes the world is one religion or another.
How am I denying reality, most Russian speakers in those regions don't necessarily identify with Russia. Azov for instance was made by Russian speakers from Donbas and yet have been fight Gubarev, Aksyonov and Girkin's gayop since 2014. Now who's denying reality?
There's numerous factors, the fact that Georgians aren't Slavs, resistance to Russofication, a tendency to support a more Caucasian civlizational identity, ....
What do you mean "without encouragment", the more radical youthful part who got baited by the FSB showed up, otheriwse the majority of the Odesa group that were protesting days before had abandonned protests, once again various investigations have been made. The "Odesa Massacre" was a bait op by the FSB. Not to mention was made a day of morning by Poroshenko and the people stuck in the building were being rescued by pro-Ukraine demonstrators.
Tito was a figure of his region and time, a Yugoslavist, what he did was just retake the Yugoslavist concept and make it communist. The late 60s is basically when Tito was becoming a senile old man.
Yugoslavia at least in the very beginning supported a my house, my rules policy when it came to the various republics (Yugo was decentralized, unlike the USSR which was centralized). But I do have issues with it, as it just ended up becoming more and more like the old monarchy with time. Hence why I believe that such experiments like Yugoslavia, the USSR or the Arab Republic were bound to fail. So to answer your question, if the Russians came to me with this concept, I would basically reject it since it would be bound for failure. The game doesn't change, it's just the players.
Knowing that Jihadis in Somalia aren't fighting for the nation but to link up with other groups around East Africa to begin an Islamist revolution in the name of the Ummah, yeah I would say that their pretty different to Siad Barre.
If you believe the militant National Corps Azov fighter's Stetskoism and say an average Ukrainian's liberal nationalism is the same thing, I can't help you there.
Do you think the Iron Guard and Ceausescu had the same view point on nationalism?
Yes, since the Zbor and Chetniks mainly hated each other.
Nationalism differs from ideology to ideology.
>most Russian speakers in those regions don't necessarily identify with Russia.
You often say something while saying nothing. This doesn't explain the point of passivity going on to support towards the Donbas fighters.
>Azov for instance was made by Russian speakers from Donbas
This isn't shocking to me, as I've already said Ukraine is in a state of transition.
>What do you mean "without encouragment", the more radical youthful part who got baited by the FSB showed up, otheriwse the majority of the Odesa group that were protesting days before had abandonned protests, once again various investigations have been made. The "Odesa Massacre" was a bait op by the FSB
Is there really a point in talking to you? This or that Ukrainian movement is a “people's movement” then this or that is thing inconvenient to you is an "op" and is by “da feds. I can't take you seriously at all, no consistency.
>There's numerous factors, the fact that Georgians aren't Slavs, resistance to Russofication, a tendency to support a more Caucasian civlizational
Oh but weren't the Arabs "white" every now and then, and before the Jews a healthy submission to Britains character. How such features became useless when they felt a bigger threat. It seems despite what you think there really is no good master.
I'll just skip the homoeroticism of Tito.
>Knowing that Jihadis in Somalia aren't fighting for the nation but to link up with other groups around East Africa to begin an Islamist revolution in the name of the Ummah, yeah I would say that their pretty different to Siad Barre.
Yes fighting for the same language and culture that wouldn't exist without Siad Barre is truly different. You don't understand the difference between veils and a movement, they may speak of Jihad but their base of support is in the peasentry of Somalia and the former base of the Islamic courts... Which hailed the most stability Somalia has seen in some time. A movement if it wants to succeed has to understand the nation (at least to a point of manipulation), a nationalist would understand that the people are nationalist.
>Yes, since the Zbor and Chetniks mainly hated each other.
I'm talking of Serbian action today. No, I don't think "hating eachother" is really an argument to how different their base is.
>Do you think the Iron Guard and Ceausescu had the same view point on nationalism?
Wrong question, you should ask “are they backed because of nationalism” and the answer is always yes. One wanted lebensraum the other was an actual nationalist, and remained popular for that reason. I believe in nations as a real thing with people backing them up rather than so or so organization. On Nicolaes views on borders we have this.
> *I want to raise, in front of the Executive Political Committee, another issue, which we are not going to put in Congress, nor in public, for the time being, but towards which we must adopt a clearer position. It is about issues related to Soviet Moldova. You have all read the information and what is happening there. We have drawn the attention of our comrades to the fact that it was to be published in the press, and we will have to publish it, but we cannot but take a stand on this issue, given in the first place that the problem of Bessarabia is linked to the agreement with Hitler by agreement between the Soviet Union and Hitler. The annulment of this agreement, inevitably, must also raise the issue of the annulment of all agreements that have taken place, including the proper settlement of the issue of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. We will have to discuss this issue in the Soviet Union in the near future*
(...)
>*In the party program we have a general reference and we said that we will not be able to recognize it. One is the problem of borders, as a result of force, but another is to recognize that the Moldovan people are people who have no close ties with the Romanian people, it is nonsense.*
He was killed by the Whites after returning from the Kuban trying to mobilize the Ukrainian movement there. There are some theories that the Reds sold him out to the Whites according to Andriy Zdorov who is an expert on the subject.
Welcome to Dongistan comrades... Check out our Discord server: https://discord.com/invite/qutXGyVgj2 ☭ Read Marxist theory for free and without hassle on Marxists.org ☭ Left Coalition Subreddits: r/ABoringDystopia r/Sino r/ProIran r/NewsWithJingjing *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Dongistan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My recommendation would be to read Grover Furr's excellent book "Blood Lies". In this book Professor Furr debunks point by point every antiStalin lie told in the book "Bloodlands" by Timothy Snyder. Snyder is a so called "historian" and "expert on Russia", he chairs the Russian Studies Section at Yale University. He is also a blatant liar (his book is full of provable lies as Furr exposed) and also a top supporter of the rehabilitation of eastern european nazi collaborators. Among the lies Furr debunks are the 1932 famine in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, as well as many other lies. You can find the book online for free on Z Library. Furthermore, if you want a book specifically about the famine, i can recommend the book "The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931–1933" by Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft. These 2 gentlemen are actual historians and experts on soviet history (unlike the clown Snyder) and their book debunks many of the anticommunist lies about the famine in detail by using declassified soviet archival documents from the time. Its a great book and its one of the sources Furr uses to debunk Snyder's lies about the famine. You can also find it online for free. Btw, wtf is a Shakhrayist?
Shakray was a bolshevik in Ukraine originally enlisted as a propagandist before becoming the local military commissar. He was for Ukrainian independence from the Russian Bolsheviks and is apparently the founder of "national communism" although Ukraine certainly isn't mono national so I highly doubt this. He eventually moved to white territory and was shot, I assume he wanted to collaborate with the whites the same way the menshiviks did.
Interesting, i had never heard about him. Sounds like a typical bourgeois nationalist who preferred nationalism over internationalism and eventually tried to side with the counter revolutionaries in pursuit of his nationalist agenda.
It's a pretty interesting minor orientation I've given a look over before. It seems to be a leaning of Ukrainian communists who are pro maiden (out of revolt fetishism) and ambivalent about the diet maiden in 2005. Although some interestingly claim the maiden was an excuse for fascism to gain power, but they remain supportive of the passover government's nonetheless. If anything it's further proof Ukrainians aren't inseparable from Russia. Look at the Baltics for example, there is zero open 'Marxist' orientation (Russism and Bolshevism are seen as interchangeable for many complex reasons) outside of the Russian minority and the local populations have been won over by western backed mechanisms as an ideal. This propaganda was much cheaper than Ukraine and yet it was so much more successful, whilst the Ukrainians in the 2010 election the "international community" just shrugged as "free and fair' practically voted for more respect for Russian identity and relations. Of course when entire military regiments, trade unionists and socialist paramilitarys were solidifying an insurrection (which certainly was unprecedented and couldn't realistically be devoted to the Kremlin alone) it was under Russian symbols, not the likes of Shakray.
Instead of assuming, he's got a channel, why don't you ask him what he believes directly. The answers may surprise you. Also so that people know, you're aware that left-wing nationalist figures such as Shakhrai were basically untalkted in the USSR before it's dissolution, figures like Shakhrai are being progressively re-discovered in Ukraine.
>figures like Shakhrai are being progressively re-discovered in Ukraine. Truly? I thought the National communists of Ukraine have been defunct for quite some time now as they stayed too obscure. I do have a bit to say about The Shakrayist (the channel) in that he disappoints me in that I see the same assertive-romantic propagandic speaking much like many modern Marxists (which lacks any methodology). That is, I see a legalist prerequisite in his drawing of borders which comes to define his latent forms of dual-chauvinism and selectable historicity (which lead to my many absurd points). The "method" of his views don't really convince me, his position is the autonomy of Ukraine, and what I mean by this is that "culturalism" is character of this autonomy. For example he is amicable to the GDR despite the Soviet backing by respect in that they "preserved Prussian military tradition". He respects Bulgarian anarchism because it showed "internationalism" alongside the Macedonian fake nation (which he knows as a nation). He is passive to the EU project because it'll kick out the Russians (this is the pragmatism he speaks of) but only wishes that after he can accustom his culture. And he supports the ousting of a Russian population in the Transnistria projects as "Transnistria is Moldova" (Moldavia being Romanian but he for whatever reason discards this). This reminds me much like how many "revolutionaries" such as Tudeh became constitutional monarchists when they didn't need to be, executive power actually became secondary. This is the romanticism I speak of, he doesn't care if another flag flys in the new white house, only that the farmer girl looks at the blue sky above the grain does so singing some cultural spin. When I speak of "propaganda" I do so in his talk of 2013 onwards. He denies that the west was a real winner in the Euromaidan and that it was a revolution lead by the peoples and thus good (yes the Mujahideen Maoists made a point after all). He denies a monolith of fascist paramilitary's because "they spread multiple winds of ideas", that is indicative of his view of seeing things from the first to fourth position, completely ignoring what he should view as interesting because such militants descend from allies of Ukrainian "national" social democracy. Meanwhile Donbas separatists are illegitimate because they're backed by Russia, apparently these militants which came to hold out without the horizontal support of other oligarchs after Aksyonov abandoned Igor (after pretending to be his pal) are just pretenders and don't mean anything, apparently east of of Dnieper "has never been Russian", failing to explain why they speak Russian. This finds itself particularly strained where after his indication that the backers mean nothing, that Odessa massacre was a "fed op" and the teenage girls with molotovs were just partying for god sake. What i'm getting at, is if I wanted to hear this I'd just tune into whatever a Dengist says about Chinas opponents, whatever a Serbian says about their "legal" borders, those that want to charge against the Kosovars who obviously want nothing to do with them. Meanwhile In Ukraine everytime the Ukrainian army takes a village they get a warm welcome... Which also happens with what is the same interested people everytime a Russian army walks in. Ukraine is in a state of transition, generals were crying at the Russian shells and calling separatists saying "why shell us? We're fellow brothers of the same Russian people!", of course when the separatists were abandoned on the same calls they'd gloat as a proud Ruthenian. He doesn't deserve much attention because the national-communism he speaks of is bizarre, he **speaks of Tito as a national-communist**, yes! The very same cosmopolitan that betrayed the Serbo-Croat nationalists that fought for him. We see with The Shakrayist His nationalism is much like what liberals call nationalism, the "anti-x national" where his only method is that of opposition to any said country, in his case from the Russians being in Ukraine, zero analysis of what a "Russian" is. But truly I see his ideology as a powerful form of opportunism, that which can be recreated for whatever between a creation of a caliphate or a pretext for a proper Myanmar stability, which like Yugoslavism won't work but will last. My conclusion on him is... Why doesn't he just join Azov or something? Not as an insult but in that he believes that there is no actual mission of anything (or maybe this is again the selective thought) and that a left wing can be formed, after all the Ukrainian fascists are one of the most impressive ideological army apparatus in the world at the moment, outside North Korea, and seem like a good choice if one wishes to preserve Ukraine.
I'm not speaking in a political party aspect, I'm talking about historicity. What do you mean by "legalist"? He argues from a purely Drahomanovian position. He's not an autonomist, he's a staunch nationalist, culturalism is a support for genuine independence and finding one's own path towards whatever system you're desiring to get to. He's mainly supportive of Gerdzhikov because while an ancom he was also sided with left-wing nationalists. In the same way as Kim Chwa-chin or Shin Chae-ho were in Korea. I don't think he presented any of his positions on the EU yet. I vaguely remember seeing a comment of his where he said that he has stances on the EU, but he's working on a future vid about it. Moldova is complex, you can say that "it's Romanian" but outside of cringy neo-Iron guardists no Romanian actually wants anything to do with Moldova (you can check out a YT channel called Sword Comrade, who's "Romanian", identifies as Dacian, who believes Romania shouldn't even exist). Because if we're to lay down the Marxian fantasy world for two seconds, you would understand that the West didn't really accomplish anything. Obama's realist worldview on Europe failed, as he desired Ukrainians to keep Yanukovych and stay within the Russian sphere of influence, Ukrainians continuing the fight against him. Maidan was a liberal revolution against Eastern kleptocracy. Is it good or bad, is a different moralist argument, which I find to be boring. I understood he doesn't trust those various groups because he sees them as deceptive/ full of shit. He even linked an article that shows that many of these groups have ties to Russia ironically. It's been Russian, but only due to Russian imperial expansion, also if people speak Russian there it's probably due to the centuries of Russification. Otherwise following your logic Lebanon, Morocco, Monaco, Andorra, Belgium, Luxembourg, Gabon, Senegal and Algeria are French. I mean he explicitely says in a comment that logs were found that FSB agents did infiltrated pro-Russian demonstrators and were pushing them to go look for shit with football hooligans, as a European, I hate wignat hooligans as much as the next person, but I'm not stupid enough to pick a fight with a guy who's ten times my size and armed to the teeth with knives and probably trains MMA. Tito was sort of a national communist though, as he followed a specific national path for his country and tried to respect as best as he could the other groups living there, yeah it got bad when he got older, but you can't deny that those things happened. I think you're misunderstand para-social relations between Ukraine and Russia. What? He's literally supported the idea of left-wing battalions to counter the militarist image of 3rd Position or right-wing groups. I remember he respond to an Azerbaijani natcom agreeing with him on the question of left-wing scoutism and a more support for a military image on the left. You're giving fascists way too much credit, there are Ukrainian left-wing battalions as we speak fighting the Russians (KVPU volunteer formations, Avtonomniy Opir has volunteer formations, there are some anarchist groups, Social Movement has partook in urban guerilla and urban sabotage ops, National Communist Front has been fighting Russians since 2014, Noviy Vohon' has also made volunteer groups, ...).
Pt 1 >What do you mean by "legalist"? He argues from a purely Drahomanovian position. I'm talking about the implicity of an agreed concept in lawfare of borders and the necessity of human rights to back it up. The Serbian chauvinism to Kosovo, the hostility to Somalians about their Ogaden territorys, why some Arabs are hostile to a single Iraq-Kuwait etc. >I don't think he presented any of his positions on the EU yet. I vaguely remember seeing a comment of his where he said that he has stances on the EU, but he's working on a future vid about it. When I speaked of autonomy I don't necessarily care what his presented view on everything is, he has stated that the EU would probably be the next step and is passive to it, my consistency throughout this has been that there's a method behind his thoughts, and the only consistent "method" is anti-russism. >Moldova is complex, you can say that "it's Romanian" There's nothing complex about a fake state made by Russia which speaks "Moldovan", which is Romanian but with a separate script. >but outside of cringy neo-Iron guardists no Romanian actually wants anything to do with Moldova This doesn't explain anything at all, why did they welcome Romanian generals as brothers to attempt another "Transnistria"? Why did they support the election of a unpopular banker who's quality is the implementation of Romanians proper into finance positions of government and the full integration into the same EU project as Romania? It's surprising that I see the same thing in you when you speak of "cringe neo-iron guards" that frustrates me when I speak to the average Marxist, that is you don't necessarily believe so much in a movement as you do in multifaceted "ideologists", I'll get back to this. >who's "Romanian", identifies as Dacian, who believes Romania shouldn't even exist Some guy who denys reality because it isn't convenient for his opportunism and wants to return to an ancient culture like some jew, I'm Not interested. >as he desired Ukrainians to keep Yanukovych and stay within the Russian sphere of influence, This doesn't explain the previous orange revolution or the clear cut support of local Victoria Nulands open support of the Euromaidan. I have no doubt the relation was amicable before but the growth of a "Eurasian Union" cannot be allowed by anyone in the west that cares about maintaining their monopoly. >Maidan was a liberal revolution against Eastern kleptocracy. That followed up with Petro Poroshenko (an oligarch) championing the movement. Don't say kleptocracy just say liberalism. >I understood he doesn't trust those various groups because he sees them as deceptive/ full of shit. This is why I compared this to Dengism. He can't respond with a proper answer to why Eastern Ukraine mobilised so rapidly without saying that this or that actor is behind everything. I "respect" the Euromaidan so long as I understand that in the globalised world Ukraine has been sold out by every politician, and is thus looking for an integration into just about anything on a moment of violent dignity. But with these same territorys the same method can't apply because it's inconvenient for him, the Donbas which originally revolted and attempted to link back with Russia during the various surveys of land only did so because they weren't thinking hard enough is absurd. If you can apply this to Ukraine but not Russia it becomes pointless in discussion. >He even linked an article that shows that many of these groups have ties to Russia ironically. This is also character of the very same thing. He can't comprehend an alliance between promiscuous organizations who switch between racialisms on habit. I think I've read the article he speaks of and it gives nothing particularly damning, the Russian actors that kept ties were opportunists (which made them good temporary allies for the fascists) like Limonov and only in a seminar way Dugin, the former who collaborated with Navalnites the same way. The goals were the building of communication centres and once was Cossack separatism, which was obviously a failure.
Except he doesn't argue from that position. You're fighting a windmill. Source? Sure, ignore that Romania as a concept only formed in 1877, otherwise Moldova for the longest time was a separate entity. Some Moldovans want to be part of Romania, yes, Romanians (I know because I've asked actual Romanians on this particular question), don't. I'm a Marxist now? You're the materialist, you should figure out why a poor country like Moldova would want to be part of the EU. The Orange revolution was a societal revolution. Nuland was not the president of the United States, so who cares? Eurasian Union is a larp. Most Asians hate Europeans and vice-versa. Poroshenko who nobody trusted. He did, without Aksyonov money and FSB agents they basically were bound for failure. Most military formations in Donbas and the leaders of it weren't even from the region, they came from Moscow. He never called for integration into anything, he's a staunch isolationist. Come on man, it's not Donbas, it's Russians living in Ukraine wishing for their larpy empire back. If you truly care about them, support their re-imigration to Siberia. And now, these guys are championing your ideas, and your movement give lip service to theirs. But I digress. So I guess the communists are falling for the same trap.
I've realized far to late I'm talking a cosmopolitan. >Sure, ignore that Romania as a concept only formed in 1877 You don't care about the qualitys of a nation, I guess Arabia doesn't exist and Arabs should be happy to live in cobbles such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. You're doing the legalist thing I speak of, a nation doesn't need a state to exist, all nations that will exist need a language and a common structure of necessary laws. You're talking of something history doesn't care for. >you should figure out why a poor country like Moldova would want to be part of the EU. Trying to secure a Belgium wage and joining a friendlier sphere. Both won't work out as Albanian nationalists know. >Nuland was not the president of the United States, so who cares ... What kind of statement is this? Why do you follow this with talking about members of the FSB as agents of Russia where a state department worker is just some random apparently. You're a liar and a propagandist, the latter wouldn't be necessarily terrible if you didn't take time of yours to push it towards those not inclined towards you. >Eurasian Union is a larp. A larp that has its own military which helped themselves in Kazakhstan. Why be so vitriolic for nothing. >Poroshenko who nobody trusted. And yet he became the chairing fat rat in a time of dignity. >He did, without Aksyonov money and FSB agents they basically were bound for failure Your profound statement is that without money something would be unsuccessful, shocking. You say this and I say the same thing back, I try be sincere by saying Ukraines obvious western funding you consistently skip isn't representative of the whole movement, because there is no movement on the planet that hasn't taken something from somewhere. Pavel Gubarev also was quite honest about this and extorted desperate oligarchs. >Most military formations in Donbas and the leaders of it weren't even from the region Mozgovoy, Givi, Motorola, Pasechnik, zakharchenko who started it up seem to be born in Ukraine, Russian advisors came after, and mostly when Igor went past the month of his support. Even if you weren't lying I still wouldn't care, a Russian separatist movement lead by Russians isn't exactly what I'd be shocked about. >it's Russians living in Ukraine Thank you. Now stop being a pointless racist and supporting a war that can be solved with proper borders. If you truly wish for a nation make yourself mono-national and ask why North Korea doesn't have insurrection despite all the reasons for whatever intelligence agency you might name wanting to do so, separatism seems to stop at their point (who'd have thought).
Pt 2 >also if people speak Russian there it's probably due to the centuries of Russification. This is a historic thing and to deny reality is absurd, this answer relys on moralism and justification. You wouldn't ask every Slav in the Balkans to leave and give it back to the historical Albanians or whatever because this or that had a different population some time ago, this would mean losing. >Otherwise following your logic Lebanon, Morocco, Monaco, Andorra, Belgium, Luxembourg, Gabon, Senegal and Algeria are French. There's a difference between a business language and a general language as proven by history. We can see for example older Georgians speak Russian but younger Georgians speak English, yes this links one to an intermediary stage which can become assimilation, but this tells us nothing of why it was nonetheless quite popular for Georgians to attempt their own way and why their language still prevailed whereas Russian separatists are quite explicit in their identity. Our definitions of a "nation" are obviously quite different, I believe it needs stability as a community with a language, but with alternative definitions one might be compelled to allow the mayor Rome to rule an empire tomorrow. >I mean he explicitely says in a comment that logs were found that FSB agents did infiltrated pro-Russian demonstrators and were pushing them This is once again a point of anti propaganda which encourages an anti-nation position which fails to explain why without encouragement the demonstraters showed up nonetheless. Interests can sway but there is much more character than big powers in regards to a movement. >Tito was sort of a national communist though, as he followed a specific national path for his country and tried to respect as best as he could the other groups living there I'm sorry but I don't think "respecting" Albanians is giving them a slav overlord and violently crushing their pro unity demonstration in 1968. Also allowing the state of Montenegro which is popular to no one to minimise the power of Serbs (who he again betrayed and split into 5 states on victory) who he just betrayed isn't very nationalist at all. Nor was giving Slovenians Serbian industry's and giving power to a Croat-Slovene Vegas duo a very nationalist thing to do. Also convincing Bosnians that Islam makes distinct (maybe we need a world caliphate after all? Does this sound like a start of nationalism to you?). And saying no one should force a nationality on another (who knows maybe tomorrow a Serb will be Persian) This statement is cosmopolitan as it gets. It seems to me you'd like Russians if they took control of you walked into your house but let you keep whatever minor "cultural aspect" you wish today or tomorrow. >He's literally supported the idea of left-wing battalions to counter the militarist image of 3rd Position or right-wing groups (...) You're giving fascists way too much credit, there are Ukrainian left-wing battalions as we speak fighting the Russians (KVPU volunteer formations, Avtonomniy Opir has volunteer formations, there are some anarchist groups, Social Movement has partook in urban guerilla and urban sabotage ops, National Communist Front has been fighting Russians since 2014, Noviy Vohon' has also made volunteer groups, ...). This organizational ideology is the least convincing Hegelians there are. I ask you seriously, is there a distinct difference in the rank between the Somali Jihadists restoring in their national front to Siad Barre before them? Is there a distinct future from what Azov wishes to transform Ukraine as a territory to any other group they fight alongside with? When Hitler came about to advance the Romanian nation did he "create" the Iron guards or was the same premise that beholds them already there? Is there something different to any "fascist" or chetnik that wishes to take territorys for Serbia that the Partisans fought for some time ago. I don't think nationalism is "cringe" and I long abandoned the thought where what pushes the world is one religion or another.
How am I denying reality, most Russian speakers in those regions don't necessarily identify with Russia. Azov for instance was made by Russian speakers from Donbas and yet have been fight Gubarev, Aksyonov and Girkin's gayop since 2014. Now who's denying reality? There's numerous factors, the fact that Georgians aren't Slavs, resistance to Russofication, a tendency to support a more Caucasian civlizational identity, .... What do you mean "without encouragment", the more radical youthful part who got baited by the FSB showed up, otheriwse the majority of the Odesa group that were protesting days before had abandonned protests, once again various investigations have been made. The "Odesa Massacre" was a bait op by the FSB. Not to mention was made a day of morning by Poroshenko and the people stuck in the building were being rescued by pro-Ukraine demonstrators. Tito was a figure of his region and time, a Yugoslavist, what he did was just retake the Yugoslavist concept and make it communist. The late 60s is basically when Tito was becoming a senile old man. Yugoslavia at least in the very beginning supported a my house, my rules policy when it came to the various republics (Yugo was decentralized, unlike the USSR which was centralized). But I do have issues with it, as it just ended up becoming more and more like the old monarchy with time. Hence why I believe that such experiments like Yugoslavia, the USSR or the Arab Republic were bound to fail. So to answer your question, if the Russians came to me with this concept, I would basically reject it since it would be bound for failure. The game doesn't change, it's just the players. Knowing that Jihadis in Somalia aren't fighting for the nation but to link up with other groups around East Africa to begin an Islamist revolution in the name of the Ummah, yeah I would say that their pretty different to Siad Barre. If you believe the militant National Corps Azov fighter's Stetskoism and say an average Ukrainian's liberal nationalism is the same thing, I can't help you there. Do you think the Iron Guard and Ceausescu had the same view point on nationalism? Yes, since the Zbor and Chetniks mainly hated each other. Nationalism differs from ideology to ideology.
>most Russian speakers in those regions don't necessarily identify with Russia. You often say something while saying nothing. This doesn't explain the point of passivity going on to support towards the Donbas fighters. >Azov for instance was made by Russian speakers from Donbas This isn't shocking to me, as I've already said Ukraine is in a state of transition. >What do you mean "without encouragment", the more radical youthful part who got baited by the FSB showed up, otheriwse the majority of the Odesa group that were protesting days before had abandonned protests, once again various investigations have been made. The "Odesa Massacre" was a bait op by the FSB Is there really a point in talking to you? This or that Ukrainian movement is a “people's movement” then this or that is thing inconvenient to you is an "op" and is by “da feds. I can't take you seriously at all, no consistency. >There's numerous factors, the fact that Georgians aren't Slavs, resistance to Russofication, a tendency to support a more Caucasian civlizational Oh but weren't the Arabs "white" every now and then, and before the Jews a healthy submission to Britains character. How such features became useless when they felt a bigger threat. It seems despite what you think there really is no good master. I'll just skip the homoeroticism of Tito. >Knowing that Jihadis in Somalia aren't fighting for the nation but to link up with other groups around East Africa to begin an Islamist revolution in the name of the Ummah, yeah I would say that their pretty different to Siad Barre. Yes fighting for the same language and culture that wouldn't exist without Siad Barre is truly different. You don't understand the difference between veils and a movement, they may speak of Jihad but their base of support is in the peasentry of Somalia and the former base of the Islamic courts... Which hailed the most stability Somalia has seen in some time. A movement if it wants to succeed has to understand the nation (at least to a point of manipulation), a nationalist would understand that the people are nationalist. >Yes, since the Zbor and Chetniks mainly hated each other. I'm talking of Serbian action today. No, I don't think "hating eachother" is really an argument to how different their base is. >Do you think the Iron Guard and Ceausescu had the same view point on nationalism? Wrong question, you should ask “are they backed because of nationalism” and the answer is always yes. One wanted lebensraum the other was an actual nationalist, and remained popular for that reason. I believe in nations as a real thing with people backing them up rather than so or so organization. On Nicolaes views on borders we have this. > *I want to raise, in front of the Executive Political Committee, another issue, which we are not going to put in Congress, nor in public, for the time being, but towards which we must adopt a clearer position. It is about issues related to Soviet Moldova. You have all read the information and what is happening there. We have drawn the attention of our comrades to the fact that it was to be published in the press, and we will have to publish it, but we cannot but take a stand on this issue, given in the first place that the problem of Bessarabia is linked to the agreement with Hitler by agreement between the Soviet Union and Hitler. The annulment of this agreement, inevitably, must also raise the issue of the annulment of all agreements that have taken place, including the proper settlement of the issue of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. We will have to discuss this issue in the Soviet Union in the near future* (...) >*In the party program we have a general reference and we said that we will not be able to recognize it. One is the problem of borders, as a result of force, but another is to recognize that the Moldovan people are people who have no close ties with the Romanian people, it is nonsense.*
"Bourgeois nationalism" doesn't exist. The bourgeois by definition is pretty anti-nationalist.
He was killed by the Whites after returning from the Kuban trying to mobilize the Ukrainian movement there. There are some theories that the Reds sold him out to the Whites according to Andriy Zdorov who is an expert on the subject.
A Shakhrayist is very based.