Removed by mod

I’m flattered by your insistence on proving my point.

Me: You’re scraping the bottom of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement. You: You dumb ass gringo.

I rest my case.

You: The dictatorship of the proletariat is a dictatorship. Me: So, not a democracy then. You: You are a fascist!

You’re scraping the bottom of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement .

So, not a democracy then.

Blocked by Cloudflare :/

Cheers, but that doesn’t resolve the contradiction.

“for whom is there democracy?” and “over whom is there a dictatorship?”

Case 1: Sloan’s example

Athenian citizens had democracy; non-citizens didn’t.

Two separate groups: no contradiction. (Partial suffrage, as opp. universal suffrage.)

Case 2: OurToothbrush

“a proletarian democracy under dictatorship of the proletariat”.

Same group (“proletarians”), so there is contradiction.

Unless it has changed recently, signing up requires copying a sentence from a communist text. This should hint at the views typically held here.

I see. Thanks for explaining.

a lot of the users here are communists, or at least other leftists.

I’m fine with that. Many of the replies in this thread, though, seem to be from “big-C” Communist (authoritarian/denialist/Stalinist) perspectives, rather than “small-c” communist or leftist ones. IMO there’s a big difference.

I too hope that you won’t take this the wrong way, but you might feel more at home on another instance, with more like-minded individuals.

Appreciate it. I’ll bear it in mind before cross-posting in future.

Which source is reputable?

Why should I list them all for you, when I’ve already linked to the article that does so? Here are just a few:

• Bellamy, Alex J. (2012), “Massacres and Morality: Mass Killing in an Age of Civilian Immunity” (PDF), Human Rights Quarterly, 34 (4), The Johns Hopkins University Press: 927‒958, doi:10.1353/hrq.2012.0066, JSTOR 23352235, S2CID 86858244
• Bradley, Mark Philip (2017), “Human Rights and Communism”, in Fürst, Juliane; Pons, Silvio; Selden, Mark (eds.), The Cambridge History of Communism: Volume 3, Endgames? Late Communism in Global Perspective, 1968 to the Present, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-108-50935-0.
• Karlsson, Klas-Göran; Schoenhals, Michael (2008), Crimes against humanity under communist regimes – Research review, Forum for Living History, ISBN 978-91-977487-2-8.
• Valentino, Benjamin (2005). Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century. Cornell University Press. ISBN 9780801472732.

Calling unborn Nazis victims of the soviet union is laughable at best.

Calling an unborn person a Nazi is about as offensive as it gets. Blocked.

The 1932–33 famine was not a genocide by any stretch of the imagination

Given that most serious genocide scholars regard the Holodomor as a genocide, you’re simply wrong.

double genocide

The double genocide article you posted links to the Holomor denial article, which describes your behaviour:

‘Holodomor denial is easily distinguished from serious scholarship, and “generally consists of especially vitriolic anti-Western and anti-Ukrainian tirades,” often accompanied by accusations of foreign influence, Nazi sympathies, or ulterior motives.’

Blocked. Genocide denial crosses the line.

• You: Sources?
• Me: [Points to article with dozens of reputable sources.]
• You: Right, so no sources.

Sheer denialism.

Swearing at me and accusing me of things I haven’t done is kangaroo court stuff, and offensive.

You still haven’t evidenced your claims - because you can’t.

I’m smug? You’re the one claiming I said something I didn’t, and refusing to provide evidence.

a proletarian democracy under dictatorship of the proletariat

Do you not see the contradiction there?

You’re promoting [dictatorship of the bourgeoisie] as an alternative to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Like I said: point me to where I did that. Oh, you can’t, because I didn’t.

I’m familiar with its origins. My feeling is: I used the word accurately.

"The tactic behind whataboutism has been around for a long time. Rhetoricians generally consider it to be a form of tu quoque, which means “you too” in Latin and involves charging your accuser with whatever it is you’ve just been accused of rather than refuting the truth of the accusation made against you. Tu quoque is considered to be a logical fallacy, because whether or not the original accuser is likewise guilty of an offense has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation.

Whataboutism adds a twist to tu quoque by directing its energies into establishing an equivalence between two or more disparate actions…

The association of whataboutism with the Soviet Union began during the Cold War. As the regimes of Josef Stalin and his successors were criticized by the West for human rights atrocities, the Soviet propaganda machine would be ready with a comeback alleging atrocities of equal reprehensibility for which the West was guilty."

Removed by mod

Where did I “promote the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”? You’re talking out of your hat.

“Whataboutism” has a specific meaning. I used the word correctly.

That’s not whataboutism at all

I asked 3 questions.

Instead of answering any, CascadeOfLight posted an irrelevant rant about US sanctions, Yeltsin, West Germany in the 1970s, Lebensraum, etc.

That is absolutely whataboutism.

I see you didn’t even bother to reply to the person who did answer all of your questions specifically with well sourced answers.

Point me to exactly where someone “did answer all [my] questions specifically with well sourced answers”.

Oh, you can’t, because no-one did do that.

Lol

You think mass killing is funny?

Any real sources

Go to the footnotes in the link I posted.