rather live in fascist(Nazi) communist (stalinism) socitey

[The Reformed American Republic]

I tried to have a civil debate in the Cuba thread. It was you who shot me down. Oh, and by the way, you did imply I was a right-winger.

Civil enough that you "kindly" labelled me as a tankie for trying to be cordial and give a nuanced view of Cuba. And, no, I didn't, in regards to that second count.

I'm not worth your time? No, you're not worth mine. Hell, you didn't even come here in good faith, with a sarcastic post that oversimplifies any opposing view.

If you think me taking a quip specifically directed at reactionaries "oversimplifies any opposing view," and want to use that as an excuse to turn what I said around toward me, then I'm sorry to say but you've made a fine bed with reactionaries. Which is honestly less incentive for me to continue this petty spat.

I made no bed with reactionaries. Rather, it read to me that you think of people who hold Stalin accountable are reactionaries. Sorry to say that the term reactionary is overused, just like the term fascist.

I've seen the term used against fascists, but also liberal democrats and the like.

[Infected Mushroom]

You have been chill and respectable here really.

I try, though as you probably just saw, I have my unfortunate moments when I'm not.

---

Just a clarification for everyone else here. I am not bound by OP's scenario and would oppose both regimes. Making me chose between Stalin and Hitler is like making me chose between being shot with bullets or arrows.

In my view, you kind of are. That’s the intended trade off and design of the hypothetical.

Anything is else from my POV is basically off topic and non responsive.

[Limonovshchina]

Nope, point out where I did this. You claim north started it, I claim south started it. The article I posted makes either plausible, so we are only arguing for each of our preferred side here. You don't like the side I'm defending and are leveling meaningless and baseless attacks based on that alone, nothing more.

Props to you for actually attempting to gaslight me while your posts remain open for everyone to see.

Here's our conversation thus far:

"We didn't start it"
Yes you did
"Well it was both"

Whatever you say, man. The united Korean government which was formed after the Japanese were kicked out was banned in the South when the Americans built their military dictatorship with Japanese officers in it and formalized in the North, so it's whatever you want bro. Believe in what you like, since you clearly do. Don't let history keep you down, man.

History says Cho Man-sik got disappeared by Soviet authorities for disagreeing with their imposed policy of trusteeship. "Formalized" is a nice euphemism for "disregarded and absorbed".

And are we going to just ignore 75,000 NK troops crossing the 38th parallel on 25 June 1950?

You fuck around and you will find out. Should've stayed away from the 38th parallel themselves. One side of the border had the legitimate government of Korea and the other a puppet state backed by foreign conquerors and led by a nazi-adjacent maniac. I'm sure you know which side I'm referring to as much as I know which one you'll be referring to.

LOL are we going to just ignore the border skirmishes instigated by the North and the communist guerillas that they supported?

Are you denying that the Soviets disappeared Cho Man-sik and imposed their own puppet state on North Korea?

On the contrary, those skirmishes seem to be the ones not ignored on here so I think you're good. No worries.


I mean, it'd be pretty easy to read from my posts if I am or have denied this, so have I?

Literal non-answers but okay.

"Meaningless and baseless attacks" my ass when you can't even defend the North's actions and resort to continuous deflection.

I wasn't under the impression that I was or that I was supposed to especially defend North Korea. My posts are there for you to see indeed and from them it reads clearly that I was pointing out historical facts and more or less treating North Korea like just about any other country. 'Just trying to set the record straight' as I said to Reformed. What I'm 'deflecting' here is the needless aggression and screeching from overzealous, angry liberals who don't seem to appreciate me not agreeing with everything they have to say about this issue specifically.

The DPRK doesn't need me or anyone really to defend it. Its people are at least content enough about their leadership and the WPK to not light a civil war or do a coup d'etat. Not to add that any nation including the United States even with all of its military might would be unwise to attack a nuclear state next to another nuclear state. Unfortunate for you, maybe.

Forming a post-Japanese provisional government is 'directly destabilizing a country', ok lol. Answering equally to border challenges from the south makes it so the north can't claim self-defense, whatever you say buddy. South gud north bad.

LOL do you have trouble comprehending my arguments? Since when is aiding communist guerillas not "directly destabilizing a country"? North gud South bad.

Communism is... LE BAD! Taking into account, again, that the legitimate united Korean government was effectively banned and wiped out in South Korea by American occupiers and their Ilminist puppet dictatorship, historical facts which YOU choose to ignore, I wouldn't be exploding over le bads and their 'direct destabilization'. Even after ilminist fascism was no longer the South Korean state policy, the country wasn't democratized until decades later with its occupying foreign military force still overstaying its welcome.

You could say they were only spreading freedom and democracy, much like le bad stalinazi Soviets democratizing most of Europe and ending fascism mostly single-handedly. Ironic right, seeing how arguably one of the least democratic and most imperialist liberal democracies has taken over that narrative completely. Sad!

[Albrenia]

I try, though as you probably just saw, I have my unfortunate moments when I'm not.

---

Just a clarification for everyone else here. I am not bound by OP's scenario and would oppose both regimes. Making me chose between Stalin and Hitler is like making me chose between being shot with bullets or arrows.

In my view, you kind of are. That’s the intended trade off and design of the hypothetical.

Anything is else from my POV is basically off topic and non responsive.

In light of that, I'll slightly change my response from earlier from "I'd die in both", just to add:

If I had to choose, Stalinism but only because I'd be less likely to be actively purged straight away, although my ultimate demise would be all but certain given a few years.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I try, though as you probably just saw, I have my unfortunate moments when I'm not.

---

Just a clarification for everyone else here. I am not bound by OP's scenario and would oppose both regimes. Making me chose between Stalin and Hitler is like making me chose between being shot with bullets or arrows.

In my view, you kind of are. That’s the intended trade off and design of the hypothetical.

Anything is else from my POV is basically off topic and non responsive.

OP was a 4chan troll and an apologist for Nazism. I don't care that much.

In my view, you kind of are. That’s the intended trade off and design of the hypothetical.

Anything is else from my POV is basically off topic and non responsive.

In light of that, I'll slightly change my response from earlier from "I'd die in both", just to add:

If I had to choose, Stalinism but only because I'd be less likely to be actively purged straight away, although my ultimate demise would be all but certain given a few years.

I can see myself in the Soviet Union if I really had to chose.

[Picairn]

I wasn't under the impression that I was or that I was supposed to especially defend North Korea. My posts are there for you to see indeed and from them it reads clearly that I was pointing out historical facts and more or less treating North Korea like just about any other country. 'Just trying to set the record straight' as I said to Reformed. What I'm 'deflecting' here is the needless aggression and screeching from overzealous, angry liberals who don't seem to appreciate me not agreeing with everything they have to say about this issue specifically.

"Pointing out historical facts" by peddling narratives about a South Korean invasion of the North while ignoring 75,000 troops crossing the Parallel on June 25, or prior Northern support to communist guerillas in the South? Not once have you ever tried to engage with the points I've raised, only continuous deflection. Bold words about "overzealous, angry liberals" when you type walls of text against any person that objects to your narrative.

The DPRK doesn't need me or anyone really to defend it.

And yet you continue to defend them.

Its people are at least content enough about their leadership and the WPK to not light a civil war or do a coup d'etat. Not to add that any nation including the United States even with all of its military might would be unwise to attack a nuclear state next to another nuclear state. Unfortunate for you, maybe.

LOL since when have I said that I want the US to attack North Korea?

Communism is... LE BAD! Taking into account, again, that the legitimate united Korean government was effectively banned and wiped out in South Korea by American occupiers and their Ilminist puppet dictatorship, historical facts which YOU choose to ignore, I wouldn't be exploding over le bads and their 'direct destabilization'. Even after ilminist fascism was no longer the South Korean state policy, the country wasn't democratized until decades later with its occupying foreign military force still overstaying its welcome.

"Oh no I'm getting called out on my narrative that the North was the victim, so I'm gonna switch strategies and just say the invasion was good, actually!"

Taking into account, again, that the Soviets established their own puppet state by disappearing Cho Man-sik and absorbed local governments into their new state with Kim as their approved Premier, historical facts which YOU choose to ignore, your entire narrative about North gud South bad is dishonest and disreputable. It's weird seeing someone simps for North Korea despite them no longer towing the Marxist-Leninist style of government since 1992, having replaced Communism with Juche as the official ideology of the State surrounding the personality cult of the Kim family.

Additionally, you can't simultaneously claim the North was the victim of invasion and its intervention in the South was good, that makes you a hypocrite. When you have deliberately destabilized a country then you are an aggressor, regardless of political ideology. Pick a narrative and stick with it, either the North Korean intervention was good or North Korea was a victim of intervention.

You could say they were only spreading freedom and democracy, much like le bad stalinazi Soviets democratizing most of Europe and ending fascism mostly single-handedly. Ironic right, seeing how arguably one of the least democratic and most imperialist liberal democracies has taken over that narrative completely. Sad!

What's sad is that you keep simping for North Korea, a totalitarian dictatorship wrapped in a personality cult.

[Limonovshchina]

I wasn't under the impression that I was or that I was supposed to especially defend North Korea. My posts are there for you to see indeed and from them it reads clearly that I was pointing out historical facts and more or less treating North Korea like just about any other country. 'Just trying to set the record straight' as I said to Reformed. What I'm 'deflecting' here is the needless aggression and screeching from overzealous, angry liberals who don't seem to appreciate me not agreeing with everything they have to say about this issue specifically.

"Pointing out historical facts" by peddling narratives about a South Korean invasion of the North while ignoring 75,000 troops crossing the Parallel on June 25, or prior Northern support to communist guerillas in the South? Not once have you ever tried to engage with the points I've raised, only continuous deflection. Bold words about "overzealous, angry liberals" when you type walls of text against any person that objects to your narrative.

The DPRK doesn't need me or anyone really to defend it.

And yet you continue to defend them.

Its people are at least content enough about their leadership and the WPK to not light a civil war or do a coup d'etat. Not to add that any nation including the United States even with all of its military might would be unwise to attack a nuclear state next to another nuclear state. Unfortunate for you, maybe.

LOL since when have I said that I want the US to attack North Korea?

Communism is... LE BAD! Taking into account, again, that the legitimate united Korean government was effectively banned and wiped out in South Korea by American occupiers and their Ilminist puppet dictatorship, historical facts which YOU choose to ignore, I wouldn't be exploding over le bads and their 'direct destabilization'. Even after ilminist fascism was no longer the South Korean state policy, the country wasn't democratized until decades later with its occupying foreign military force still overstaying its welcome.

"Oh no I'm getting called out on my narrative that the North was the victim, so I'm gonna switch strategies and just say the invasion was good, actually!"

Taking into account, again, that the Soviets established their own puppet state by disappearing Cho Man-sik and absorbed local governments into their new state with Kim as their approved Premier, historical facts which YOU choose to ignore, your entire narrative about North gud South bad is dishonest and disreputable. It's weird seeing someone simps for North Korea despite them no longer towing the Marxist-Leninist style of government since 1992, having replaced Communism with Juche as the official ideology of the State surrounding the personality cult of the Kim family.

Additionally, you can't simultaneously claim the North was the victim of invasion and its intervention in the South was good, that makes you a hypocrite. When you have deliberately destabilized a country then you are an aggressor, regardless of political ideology. Pick a narrative and stick with it, either the North Korean intervention was good or North Korea was a victim of intervention.

You could say they were only spreading freedom and democracy, much like le bad stalinazi Soviets democratizing most of Europe and ending fascism mostly single-handedly. Ironic right, seeing how arguably one of the least democratic and most imperialist liberal democracies has taken over that narrative completely. Sad!

What's sad is that you keep simping for North Korea, a totalitarian dictatorship wrapped in a personality cult.

Obsessed. Reread my posts, I have responded to your and other people's points which you keep repeating over and over while responding to me with one big 'no u'. Take a break my guy, you're wasting your seething on me. What you want is a screaming match with the final word, the latter of which I'll give you gladly if it makes you feel better.

[Picairn]

Obsessed.

Bold words about "overzealous, angry liberals" when you type walls of text against any person that objects to your narrative.

Reread my posts, I have responded to your and other people's points which you keep repeating over and over while responding to me with one big 'no u'.

I'm "repeating" because you continually refuse to engage with them.

Take a break my guy, you're wasting your seething on me.

Bold words about "overzealous, angry liberals" when you type walls of text against any person that objects to your narrative.

What you want is a screaming match with the final word, the latter of which I'll give you gladly if it makes you feel better.

Thanks for admitting that you have run out of arguments. See you next time when you spew the same pro-North Korean viewpoints again.

[Limonovshchina]

Obsessed.

Bold words about "overzealous, angry liberals" when you type walls of text against any person that objects to your narrative.

Reread my posts, I have responded to your and other people's points which you keep repeating over and over while responding to me with one big 'no u'.

I'm "repeating" because you continually refuse to engage with them.

Take a break my guy, you're wasting your seething on me.

Bold words about "overzealous, angry liberals" when you type walls of text against any person that objects to your narrative.

What you want is a screaming match with the final word, the latter of which I'll give you gladly if it makes you feel better.

Thanks for admitting that you have run out of arguments. See you next time when you spew the same pro-North Korean viewpoints again.

Anytime! Keep on subverting those tankies, my guy. You're doing the Lord's work here.

[Limonovshchina]

So anyway, to roughly sum up my previous points and build some sort of timeline for the events regarding the DPRK.

• Empire of Japan gets booted off Korean peninsula, making Korea independent.
• Koreans form a provisional government known as the People's Republic of Korea.
• PRK has to flee north due to the southern parts getting occupied by the US military, which bans and wipes out said government.
• ROK is established as a fascist military dictatorship headed by Syngman Rhee.
• PRK becomes part of Soviet sphere of influence and the DPRK we know today.
• The border of both Koreas are challenged by each other with ROK or South Korea advancing north, which the article I posted said.
• DPRK invades and the Korean war is considered begun.

Sorry that these came out entirely disjointed. These are all in the posts I've made before in this thread. As far as I am concerned, I haven't ignored anything and there's not much to ignore really when it's already been pointed out by other people and the Korean war itself is pretty much common historical knowledge by itself. Just pointing out less known facts.

[Picairn]

Anytime! Keep on subverting those tankies, my guy. You're doing the Lord's work here.

I humbly accept your high praise.

[-Astoria-]

I think my chances of staying alive would be a bit more positive under a Stalinist regime compared to if I was undar a Nazi one; being of the wrong colour doesn't help much, either.

[Rosmana]

I think my chances of staying alive would be a bit more positive under a Stalinist regime compared to if I was undar a Nazi one; being of the wrong colour doesn't help much, either.

Same, mental disability and all.

but I would not live for that much longer, I am pretty outspoken.

[Hukhalia]

Civil enough that you "kindly" labelled me as a tankie for trying to be cordial and give a nuanced view of Cuba. And, no, I didn't, in regards to that second count.



If you think me taking a quip specifically directed at reactionaries "oversimplifies any opposing view," and want to use that as an excuse to turn what I said around toward me, then I'm sorry to say but you've made a fine bed with reactionaries. Which is honestly less incentive for me to continue this petty spat.

I made no bed with reactionaries. Rather, it read to me that you think of people who hold Stalin accountable are reactionaries. Sorry to say that the term reactionary is overused, just like the term fascist.

I've seen the term used against fascists, but also liberal democrats and the like.

The term "reactionary" occupies a certain historical and social position which continues to be relevant today. Much of the rhetoric against the USSR during Stalin's tenure as General-Secretary/Chairman - which, contrary to popular belief, did not see him take total control of the country, but actually saw a lot of political leaders lead a vast amount of political positions and institutions composing all of Soviet society - emerges from the ideological currents that served as relatively reactionary rhetoric against the relatively progressive society established in the USSR at the time. To repeat this nigh-Goebbelsian propaganda is to take the side of reaction.

[Soviet Progonya]

I'd rather not live under an ideology which wants me dead for several traits that I was born with.

At the very least, the communists I know don't consider Jewish people subhuman or want to get rid of disabled people. Naziism and fascism are disgusting ideologies by default.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I made no bed with reactionaries. Rather, it read to me that you think of people who hold Stalin accountable are reactionaries. Sorry to say that the term reactionary is overused, just like the term fascist.

I've seen the term used against fascists, but also liberal democrats and the like.

The term "reactionary" occupies a certain historical and social position which continues to be relevant today. Much of the rhetoric against the USSR during Stalin's tenure as General-Secretary/Chairman - which, contrary to popular belief, did not see him take total control of the country, but actually saw a lot of political leaders lead a vast amount of political positions and institutions composing all of Soviet society - emerges from the ideological currents that served as relatively reactionary rhetoric against the relatively progressive society established in the USSR at the time. To repeat this nigh-Goebbelsian propaganda is to take the side of reaction.

We know who those leaders reported to. I doubt one needs to be of the same ideology of Goebbels to rightfully hate Stalin.

[Kubra]

The term "reactionary" occupies a certain historical and social position which continues to be relevant today. Much of the rhetoric against the USSR during Stalin's tenure as General-Secretary/Chairman - which, contrary to popular belief, did not see him take total control of the country, but actually saw a lot of political leaders lead a vast amount of political positions and institutions composing all of Soviet society - emerges from the ideological currents that served as relatively reactionary rhetoric against the relatively progressive society established in the USSR at the time. To repeat this nigh-Goebbelsian propaganda is to take the side of reaction.

We know who those leaders reported to. I doubt one needs to be of the same ideology of Goebbels to rightfully hate Stalin.

I mean it's worth noting that a lot of Stalin's reforms were pretty much a rollback of all the 20's progressivism in most affairs of society

[The Reformed American Republic]

We know who those leaders reported to. I doubt one needs to be of the same ideology of Goebbels to rightfully hate Stalin.

I mean it's worth noting that a lot of Stalin's reforms were pretty much a rollback of all the 20's progressivism in most affairs of society

Exactly. Lenin gave land to poor farmers. Stalin took it back and implemented other terrible policies.

[Kubra]

I mean it's worth noting that a lot of Stalin's reforms were pretty much a rollback of all the 20's progressivism in most affairs of society

Exactly. Lenin gave land to poor farmers. Stalin took it back and implemented other terrible policies.

Well, you know how it is, "marxism-leninism" is in our anglophonic world mostly an internet ideology, not something by folks who sit through annual meetings talking about newspaper sales and organisational culture, among other things.
And its preferable to think them so, since meeting the RL marxist leninists, ah, oh jeez, anyone but those bores. I miss the local anarchist scene, they always priced their booze at cost.

[Hukhalia]

The term "reactionary" occupies a certain historical and social position which continues to be relevant today. Much of the rhetoric against the USSR during Stalin's tenure as General-Secretary/Chairman - which, contrary to popular belief, did not see him take total control of the country, but actually saw a lot of political leaders lead a vast amount of political positions and institutions composing all of Soviet society - emerges from the ideological currents that served as relatively reactionary rhetoric against the relatively progressive society established in the USSR at the time. To repeat this nigh-Goebbelsian propaganda is to take the side of reaction.

We know who those leaders reported to. I doubt one needs to be of the same ideology of Goebbels to rightfully hate Stalin.

are you seriously implying that stalin commanded every aspect of the soviet government unhindered?

[Kubra]

We know who those leaders reported to. I doubt one needs to be of the same ideology of Goebbels to rightfully hate Stalin.

are you seriously implying that stalin commanded every aspect of the soviet government unhindered?

perhaps not, but that tends less to exonerate stalin and more to incriminate much larger sections of the party administrative apparatus.

[The Reformed American Republic]

We know who those leaders reported to. I doubt one needs to be of the same ideology of Goebbels to rightfully hate Stalin.

are you seriously implying that stalin commanded every aspect of the soviet government unhindered?

Do I think he was responsible for every burned out lightbulb? No. That being said, Stalin was a tyrant who did have many people outright murdered. He purged the party of political threats, expanded the gulag system, as well as other terrible policies. He was an evil man.

[Mercatus]

I would choose fascism because I would have been sent off to a Gulag/death camp under communism. I would then shut the fuck up and stay under the radar until I can muster the men and weapons to take down both regimes.

[Dystopian Florida]

Neither, but an authoritarian state is not always bad, if it's neither of those. Fascism is worst, at least in the Nazi form, Stalinism next worst, Maoism, Juche, Trotskyism, Francoism, Italian-style fascism, gynocratic fascism (presently called Fourth Wave Feminism), and then Islamism, of course.

An authoritarian, patriarchal state with economic populism, secularism, and civic nationalism would be best. It would be best to preserve some democratic institutions while avoiding the most corruptible ones, such as two or three major national parties which only answer to their donors these days. State or provincial governments would continue to exist as well, with limited representative systems.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

gynocratic fascism (presently called Fourth Wave Feminism)

LMFAO