Has anyone been critical of Rojava

[Communal concils]

Well, I just don't like how people treat it as a magical utopia.

I didnt know that was a popular thing that was occuring.

If you look at Vox news you can see that, It is the progressive liberal and anarchist that mostly treat Rojava like this.

[Torrocca]

Critical? Yes.

Scathingly hateful of them to the point of entirely shitting on anything and everything they do - regardless of the goodness or badness of it - because they don't follow a very specific set of individually-held beliefs that dubiously count as "leftist", in order to shit on the vast majority of leftists who don't agree with that specific set of beliefs? No.

I fall into the former of these two things. You, OP, fall into the latter.

[Communal concils]

There are some accusations they're ethnically cleansing Assyrians, Arabs, and Chaldeans from the territories they've taken. Which might explain why those people are summoning in IS, considering that on the Ninevah plain they're all predominately Christians.

That I didn’t know. But like I said earlier, I don’t know much about Rojava as I hadn’t heard of it until this thread.

There are many Leftist movements that you probably don't know. Like the Zapista territory of Mexico, or the Communist revolution of Nepal that succeeded in 2009.

[Communal concils]

Critical? Yes.

Scathingly hateful of them to the point of entirely shitting on anything and everything they do - regardless of the goodness or badness of it - because they don't follow a very specific set of individually-held beliefs that dubiously count as "leftist", in order to shit on the vast majority of leftists who don't agree with that specific set of beliefs? No.

I fall into the former of these two things. You, OP, fall into the latter.

well, Libertarian Socialist have been doing that to nearly every leftist movement. From the soviet union, too Burkina Faso. It's all shit, because of State "Capitalism". I'm just doing what the opposition has been doing for a longer time.

[Torrocca]

Critical? Yes.

Scathingly hateful of them to the point of entirely shitting on anything and everything they do - regardless of the goodness or badness of it - because they don't follow a very specific set of individually-held beliefs that dubiously count as "leftist", in order to shit on the vast majority of leftists who don't agree with that specific set of beliefs? No.

I fall into the former of these two things. You, OP, fall into the latter.

well, Libertarian Socialist have been doing that to nearly every leftist movement. From the soviet union, too Burkina Faso.

It's almost like those movements were actually shit that led to things like the Holodomor, whereas the only thing Rojava's done besides building its movement up is shooting the bastards in ISIS.

It's all shit, because of State "Capitalism".

It's shit for way more than just that.

I'm just doing what the opposition has been doing for a longer time.

You almost make it sound like something that's common for almost all tankies and the like to do is something you're championing all by yourself.

[Communal concils]

well, Libertarian Socialist have been doing that to nearly every leftist movement. From the soviet union, too Burkina Faso.

It's almost like those movements were actually shit that led to things like the Holodomor, whereas the only thing Rojava's done besides building its movement up is shooting the bastards in ISIS.

It's all shit, because of State "Capitalism".

It's shit for way more than just that.

I'm just doing what the opposition has been doing for a longer time.

You almost make it sound like something that's common for almost all tankies and the like to do is something you're championing all by yourself.

1. So all this regimes did their own version of "Holodomer". Even Burkina Faso. I find it very foolish to claim that they were all the same. They had the same economic system as the soviets, and follow similar rules, but these nations have increased living standards of their citizens. Somalia was great under Marxism-Leninism, at least they did not fight among each other, and they could make factories. after 1991, I "guess" they are better without a red menace. Also, You seem to forget that Rojava takes the oil from the Arabs it occupies. They are force to live under militants that they don't like. It is good that they kill ISIS, But it's dangerous to think they are perfect because of that one fact.

2. Well,there is the argument of state Capitalism and the argument that "Authoritarian=bad". I'll say that it was necessary to sometimes oppress opposition. If the leader use his resources wisely, and if he is pragmatic, then his society will prosper.

3. There are many like me. There are many Socialist that reject Rojava. Maoist, and Hoxhaist do agree with me, and even some typical Marxist-Leninist. Though, the funniest part of this "Criticism" is that you call us this Childish name. In return, we will call you a "Anarkiddie".

[Torrocca]

It's almost like those movements were actually shit that led to things like the Holodomor, whereas the only thing Rojava's done besides building its movement up is shooting the bastards in ISIS.



It's shit for way more than just that.



You almost make it sound like something that's common for almost all tankies and the like to do is something you're championing all by yourself.

1. So all this regimes did their own version of "Holodomer". Even Burkina Faso. I find it very foolish to claim that they were all the same.

I pretty clearly never fucking said that. They all led to different atrocities.

"Holodomer".

Oh, so we're dying the Holodomor now. Awesome.

They had the same economic system as the soviets, and follow similar rules, but these nations have increased living standards of their citizens. Somalia was great under Marxism-Leninism, at least they did not fight among each other, and they could make factories.

Increasing living standards doesn't change the fact that these regimes were atrocious and horrendous for a fuckton of people in a fuckton of different ways.

Also, You seem to forget that Rojava takes the oil from the Arabs it occupies. They are force to live under militants that they don't like. It is good that they kill ISIS, But it's dangerous to think they are perfect because of that one fact.

I love how you're A) completely ignoring the fact that I've already said I'm critical of certain aspects of Rojava and don't find them perfect and B) acting like taking oil is equivalent to the USSR slaughtering Kulaks or whomever else the regime killed.

2. Well,there is the argument of state Capitalism and the argument that "Authoritarian=bad". I'll say that it was necessary to sometimes oppress opposition. If the leader use his resources wisely, and if he is pragmatic, then his society will prosper.

"Oppression is okay if it's done for the right reasons!!1!" Yeah, no. Fuck that noise.

3. There are many like me. There are many Socialist that reject Rojava. Maoist, and Hoxhaist do agree with me, and even some typical Marxist-Leninist.

Good for you. Enjoy your group's shitty little circlejerk of shitting on genuine leftist movements because they don't play into your authoritarian ideals.

Though, the funniest part of this "Criticism" is that you call us this Childish name.

Tankie is a legitimate demonym for "leftist" authoritarians like yourself.

In return, we will call you a "Anarkiddie".

I'm an Anarkitty. Get your terminology right >:c

[Communal concils]

1. So all this regimes did their own version of "Holodomer". Even Burkina Faso. I find it very foolish to claim that they were all the same.

I pretty clearly never fucking said that. They all led to different atrocities.

"Holodomer".

Oh, so we're dying the Holodomor now. Awesome.

They had the same economic system as the soviets, and follow similar rules, but these nations have increased living standards of their citizens. Somalia was great under Marxism-Leninism, at least they did not fight among each other, and they could make factories.

Increasing living standards doesn't change the fact that these regimes were atrocious and horrendous for a fuckton of people in a fuckton of different ways.

Also, You seem to forget that Rojava takes the oil from the Arabs it occupies. They are force to live under militants that they don't like. It is good that they kill ISIS, But it's dangerous to think they are perfect because of that one fact.

I love how you're A) completely ignoring the fact that I've already said I'm critical of certain aspects of Rojava and don't find them perfect and B) acting like taking oil is equivalent to the USSR slaughtering Kulaks or whomever else the regime killed.

2. Well,there is the argument of state Capitalism and the argument that "Authoritarian=bad". I'll say that it was necessary to sometimes oppress opposition. If the leader use his resources wisely, and if he is pragmatic, then his society will prosper.

"Oppression is okay if it's done for the right reasons!!1!" Yeah, no. Fuck that noise.

3. There are many like me. There are many Socialist that reject Rojava. Maoist, and Hoxhaist do agree with me, and even some typical Marxist-Leninist.

Good for you. Enjoy your group's shitty little circlejerk of shitting on genuine leftist movements because they don't play into your authoritarian ideals.

Though, the funniest part of this "Criticism" is that you call us this Childish name.

Tankie is a legitimate demonym for "leftist" authoritarians like yourself.

In return, we will call you a "Anarkiddie".

I'm an Anarkitty. Get your terminology right >:c

1. That really depends on what you mean by atrocity. Honestly, everything a state does is a atrocity to an anarchist. If we talking about the government just killing people, I'll say that it depends on the person being killed. Did they do anything wrong, did they have a motive? The Bolsheviks were right in suppression sympathies of the white Russians. The whites failed to have great victories in the great war, they failed to improve living conditions, and did not offer even basic concessions to the working class. For places for Cuba, it is even more meaningful. Especially when lot's of the dissidence are members of the Batista government. I guess the privilege rich that taked advantage of workers,shouldn't be beaten. Even non-socialist revolutions like the Islamic revolution of Iran were justified. The people of that regime toppled a leader that shove things into the backsides of people,and rise up against bad economic conditions.

2. Well, Famines in the USSR were of several factors. One is that Russia experience a world war and a civil war. Another is that the weather did not help, another is that their was economic miscalculations and the final main point is that the rich landlords burn their property(because if they can't have it, then one can).

3. It depends on the people being oppress. point 1 is all about that. Things are not bad for the sake of "Badness', but only the consequence are reason are the true factors.

4. So Rojava shouldn't seek out and kill ISIS sleeper cells? I see that as Oppression of ISIS, which is good in my opinion. It's good for ISIS members to be stripped of human rights.

5. Anarchist have been doing that. Marxist-Leninist have at least had gain popular support in various societies, and it still does. How come I barely see anarchist movements in the third world, and How come the anarchist have not created a society that has lasted more than 3 years. So It is the Libertarian socialist that are the true elitist.

6. There is only one Gender for anarchist, That is Anarkiddie. There is no such thing as AnarKitty.

[Heloin]

I pretty clearly never fucking said that. They all led to different atrocities.



Oh, so we're dying the Holodomor now. Awesome.



Increasing living standards doesn't change the fact that these regimes were atrocious and horrendous for a fuckton of people in a fuckton of different ways.



I love how you're A) completely ignoring the fact that I've already said I'm critical of certain aspects of Rojava and don't find them perfect and B) acting like taking oil is equivalent to the USSR slaughtering Kulaks or whomever else the regime killed.



"Oppression is okay if it's done for the right reasons!!1!" Yeah, no. Fuck that noise.



Good for you. Enjoy your group's shitty little circlejerk of shitting on genuine leftist movements because they don't play into your authoritarian ideals.



Tankie is a legitimate demonym for "leftist" authoritarians like yourself.



I'm an Anarkitty. Get your terminology right >:c

1. That really depends on what you mean by atrocity. Honestly, everything a state does is a atrocity to an anarchist. If we talking about the government just killing people, I'll say that it depends on the person being killed. Did they do anything wrong, did they have a motive? The Bolsheviks were right in suppression sympathies of the white Russians. The whites failed to have great victories in the great war, they failed to improve living conditions, and did not offer even basic concessions to the working class. For places for Cuba, it is even more meaningful. Especially when lot's of the dissidence are members of the Batista government. I guess the privilege rich that taked advantage of workers,shouldn't be beaten. Even non-socialist revolutions like the Islamic revolution of Iran were justified. The people of that regime toppled a leader that shove things into the backsides of people,and rise up against bad economic conditions.

2. Well, Famines in the USSR were of several factors. One is that Russia experience a world war and a civil war. Another is that the weather did not help, another is that their was economic miscalculations and the final main point is that the rich landlords burn their property(because if they can't have it, then one can).

3. It depends on the people being oppress. point 1 is all about that. Things are not bad for the sake of "Badness', but only the consequence are reason are the true factors.

4. So Rojava shouldn't seek out and kill ISIS sleeper cells? I see that as Oppression of ISIS, which is good in my opinion. It's good for ISIS members to be stripped of human rights.

5. Anarchist have been doing that. Marxist-Leninist have at least had gain popular support in various societies, and it still does. How come I barely see anarchist movements in the third world, and How come the anarchist have not created a society that has lasted more than 3 years. So It is the Libertarian socialist that are the true elitist.

6. There is only one Gender for anarchist, That is Anarkiddie. There is no such thing as AnarKitty.

Genocide denial is bad m'kay.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I didnt know that was a popular thing that was occuring.

If you look at Vox news you can see that, It is the progressive liberal and anarchist that mostly treat Rojava like this.

Literally all Vox has is an article about Rojava and how it is an attempt at democracy for Kurds in the Middle East. Not really seeing how this is some sort of fanatical over-hype about utopia.

Regardless, Torr has already pretty much summed up exactly what I was going to say.

Critical? Yes.

Scathingly hateful of them to the point of entirely shitting on anything and everything they do - regardless of the goodness or badness of it - because they don't follow a very specific set of individually-held beliefs that dubiously count as "leftist", in order to shit on the vast majority of leftists who don't agree with that specific set of beliefs? No.

I fall into the former of these two things. You, OP, fall into the latter.

[Risottia]

Rojava may not be paradise on Earth, but it kicked IS in the balls and now it's opposed by the New Ottoman Sultanate, so, go Rojava.

[Epicurustan]

Rojava has nice ideals, their constitution is good and so forth. Generally speaking I think they would be the best party to make peace in Syria.

That said - they are too idealistic, little pragmatic. They refuse to trade and industrialize due to their ecological ideology. Which is noble, but not good in the long term. Rojava needs to centralize its economical coordination and industrialize to become as self sufficient as possible.

Aside of that, Rojava doesn't call itself anarchistic. Yes, there are anarchist groups there, but the State exists.

1.I agree with you. Most Leftist forget that the most successful societies are the ones with a command economy of mass production and industrialization.

2. I know that they are not anarchist, but their are officials of the YPG that say so. A significant number of left-Libertarians think it's anarchist.

I wouldn't say that a command economy is per defintion better than a market economy, I'd even argue otherwise. Nevertheless, the means of producing should be improved in Rojava in both quality and quantity.

[Communal concils]

1.I agree with you. Most Leftist forget that the most successful societies are the ones with a command economy of mass production and industrialization.

2. I know that they are not anarchist, but their are officials of the YPG that say so. A significant number of left-Libertarians think it's anarchist.

I wouldn't say that a command economy is per defintion better than a market economy, I'd even argue otherwise. Nevertheless, the means of producing should be improved in Rojava in both quality and quantity.

I agree with you that means of production should be improved.

[Communal concils]

1. That really depends on what you mean by atrocity. Honestly, everything a state does is a atrocity to an anarchist. If we talking about the government just killing people, I'll say that it depends on the person being killed. Did they do anything wrong, did they have a motive? The Bolsheviks were right in suppression sympathies of the white Russians. The whites failed to have great victories in the great war, they failed to improve living conditions, and did not offer even basic concessions to the working class. For places for Cuba, it is even more meaningful. Especially when lot's of the dissidence are members of the Batista government. I guess the privilege rich that taked advantage of workers,shouldn't be beaten. Even non-socialist revolutions like the Islamic revolution of Iran were justified. The people of that regime toppled a leader that shove things into the backsides of people,and rise up against bad economic conditions.

2. Well, Famines in the USSR were of several factors. One is that Russia experience a world war and a civil war. Another is that the weather did not help, another is that their was economic miscalculations and the final main point is that the rich landlords burn their property(because if they can't have it, then one can).

3. It depends on the people being oppress. point 1 is all about that. Things are not bad for the sake of "Badness', but only the consequence are reason are the true factors.

4. So Rojava shouldn't seek out and kill ISIS sleeper cells? I see that as Oppression of ISIS, which is good in my opinion. It's good for ISIS members to be stripped of human rights.

5. Anarchist have been doing that. Marxist-Leninist have at least had gain popular support in various societies, and it still does. How come I barely see anarchist movements in the third world, and How come the anarchist have not created a society that has lasted more than 3 years. So It is the Libertarian socialist that are the true elitist.

6. There is only one Gender for anarchist, That is Anarkiddie. There is no such thing as AnarKitty.

Genocide denial is bad m'kay.

I didn't deny Genocide.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race.

The event know as the Holodomer affected people across soviet society, including Russians. It was across the nation, and everyone was effected. It's a myth that the Ukrainians are the most mistreated People in the USSR. Ukraine uses the narrative the holodomer to justify it's current policies, and it tries to change the famines of the soviet union into a Ukrainian only tragedy.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

Supporting Ypg means to support terrorists.Please don't support baby killer terrorists same situation may be In your country only empathy and say no to war
(Image)

Any proof of the YPG committing atrocities that involve slaughtering children?

Supporting Ypg means to support terrorists.Please don't support baby killer terrorists same situation may be In your country only empathy and say no to war
(Image)

Leftist militias are prone to committing acts of terrorism; it is intrinsic to the ideals of the Left-wing Revolution which is inherently violent by default. Recent notions of pacifism and peaceful change of government are just that: recent. Violent Revolution is what Communism and Socialism were born into - it is the natural state of both ideologies. Men like Trotsky were not radicals, they were the Vanguard. This is why these ideologies are inherently unstable and cannot exist outside of a state of war. The very nature of these ideologies necessitates the violent overthrow and subversion of lawful authority, and this is why they are ultimately a force for evil in the world by default. The world is a better place without the Eastern Bloc.

Do you have evidence that the YPG have killed babies?

How do you expect to defeat terrorists without going to war?

Evidence Is history ypg and pkk are the puppet of the imperialist states.

Where are you from ?
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/af ... gn/1095707

[Communal concils]

If you look at Vox news you can see that, It is the progressive liberal and anarchist that mostly treat Rojava like this.

Literally all Vox has is an article about Rojava and how it is an attempt at democracy for Kurds in the Middle East. Not really seeing how this is some sort of fanatical over-hype about utopia.

Regardless, Torr has already pretty much summed up exactly what I was going to say.

Critical? Yes.

Scathingly hateful of them to the point of entirely shitting on anything and everything they do - regardless of the goodness or badness of it - because they don't follow a very specific set of individually-held beliefs that dubiously count as "leftist", in order to shit on the vast majority of leftists who don't agree with that specific set of beliefs? No.

I fall into the former of these two things. You, OP, fall into the latter.

1. There is a video about it . A Video in which they are mindlessly praised

2. As I said, Anarchist are no different. In fact, they are most likely to be like this. especially when they worship a society because it claims to follow their ideals. Show me a anarchist society that lasted more than 3 years, and How comes Anarchism isn't common outside the west.

[Badb Catha]

Any proof of the YPG committing atrocities that involve slaughtering children?

Leftist militias are prone to committing acts of terrorism; it is intrinsic to the ideals of the Left-wing Revolution which is inherently violent by default. Recent notions of pacifism and peaceful change of government are just that: recent. Violent Revolution is what Communism and Socialism were born into - it is the natural state of both ideologies. Men like Trotsky were not radicals, they were the Vanguard. This is why these ideologies are inherently unstable and cannot exist outside of a state of war. The very nature of these ideologies necessitates the violent overthrow and subversion of lawful authority, and this is why they are ultimately a force for evil in the world by default. The world is a better place without the Eastern Bloc.

Do you have evidence that the YPG have killed babies?

How do you expect to defeat terrorists without going to war?

Evidence Is history ypg and pkk are the puppet of the imperialist states.

Where are you from ?
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/af ... gn/1095707

Why does my country of origin matter?

Forgive me if I do not trust Turkish sources on subjects concerning Kurdish rebels, but they have every excuse to be biased on the topic. Are there any non-Turkish sources to corroborate what is being said here?

[Upper Saust Latiegebestica]

Rojava is a unrecognized state that is located in northeastern Syria. The state was established in 2012 in the rojava revolution. The power vacuum of the civil war in Syria lead to the Kurdish militants to sieze a significant portion of the country. in 2014, the state gained western support. the evacuations of sinjar mountain, and the battle of Kobani gave them the image of being the brave souls of the middle east.

Progressives see them as hope for democracy, anarchist like that they declare themselves "not a state", and many insignificant leftist ideologues put lot's of faith into the revolution (even though, they serve as cannon fodder). along their crusade for liberation, the YPG and PKK have been accused of human right violations like Ethnic cleansing, child soldiers, displacement, and killings of dissidence. Rojava has also been accused of Kurdish chauvinism disguised as anarchism.

In my opinion, Rojava is a living contradiction. Claiming to be libertarian, but they rule over people that don't want to be ruled. Rojava is everything the social anarchist and other libertarian socialist have accused state socialist of doing, only that they are ineffective at making policies universally enforce. I find it funny that this "Anarchist" state depends on nations (like America ) for it's survival. In fact, it would be crushed by Assad without American aid. The YPG even allowed United States troops to be stationed there, which means that rojava is now a important part of Neo-Conservative imperialism.

What I want to know, is your reason for being against or for this state. It deserves the title state, The state is a "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence within a given territory."


Sources: https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/18/syr ... n-enclaves

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... ar-crimes/

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opini ... 43648.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syri ... SKCN1S40RD


(Image)

"neo-conservative imperialism?" How does not getting into unnessicary wars be imperialist?

[Communal concils]

Rojava is a unrecognized state that is located in northeastern Syria. The state was established in 2012 in the rojava revolution. The power vacuum of the civil war in Syria lead to the Kurdish militants to sieze a significant portion of the country. in 2014, the state gained western support. the evacuations of sinjar mountain, and the battle of Kobani gave them the image of being the brave souls of the middle east.

Progressives see them as hope for democracy, anarchist like that they declare themselves "not a state", and many insignificant leftist ideologues put lot's of faith into the revolution (even though, they serve as cannon fodder). along their crusade for liberation, the YPG and PKK have been accused of human right violations like Ethnic cleansing, child soldiers, displacement, and killings of dissidence. Rojava has also been accused of Kurdish chauvinism disguised as anarchism.

In my opinion, Rojava is a living contradiction. Claiming to be libertarian, but they rule over people that don't want to be ruled. Rojava is everything the social anarchist and other libertarian socialist have accused state socialist of doing, only that they are ineffective at making policies universally enforce. I find it funny that this "Anarchist" state depends on nations (like America ) for it's survival. In fact, it would be crushed by Assad without American aid. The YPG even allowed United States troops to be stationed there, which means that rojava is now a important part of Neo-Conservative imperialism.

What I want to know, is your reason for being against or for this state. It deserves the title state, The state is a "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence within a given territory."


Sources: https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/18/syr ... n-enclaves

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... ar-crimes/

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opini ... 43648.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syri ... SKCN1S40RD


(Image)

"neo-conservative imperialism?" How does not getting into unnessicary wars be imperialist?

I don't see US involvement in Syria as necessary. Rojava is sitting on oil, and many corporations want to have that oil. There is no real concern for the population, and the only concern is oil. A thing that america already has. What we see here is the hoarding of resources, and we can see that none of the billions of dollars made are not spent on social programs or any economic strategy.

[Chan Island]

Rojava has mostly been alright. Very encouraging bright light in the darkness that is the middle east.

*Reads OP's contributions to the thread*

... but I see the object of this thread isn't actually to discuss Rojava, but just to diss them for every single little thing they have done. Including defending themselves from ISIS. In a civil war. Yawn.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

Evidence Is history ypg and pkk are the puppet of the imperialist states.

Where are you from ?
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/af ... gn/1095707

Why does my country of origin matter?

Forgive me if I do not trust Turkish sources on subjects concerning Kurdish rebels, but they have every excuse to be biased on the topic. Are there any non-Turkish sources to corroborate what is being said here?

Important because we can see things from here I live in turkey please trust me this terrorist organization puppet of the imperialists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish%E ... %93present)

[Heloin]

Genocide denial is bad m'kay.

I didn't deny Genocide.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race.

The event know as the Holodomer affected people across soviet society, including Russians. It was across the nation, and everyone was effected. It's a myth that the Ukrainians are the most mistreated People in the USSR. Ukraine uses the narrative the holodomer to justify it's current policies, and it tries to change the famines of the soviet union into a Ukrainian only tragedy.

gen·o·cide
/ˈjenəˌsīd/
noun
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Half the victims of the Holocaust were not Jewish, and the Cambodian Genocide wasn't targeting just any one group.

Genocide denial/apologism is bad.

[Torrocca]

I pretty clearly never fucking said that. They all led to different atrocities.



Oh, so we're dying the Holodomor now. Awesome.



Increasing living standards doesn't change the fact that these regimes were atrocious and horrendous for a fuckton of people in a fuckton of different ways.



I love how you're A) completely ignoring the fact that I've already said I'm critical of certain aspects of Rojava and don't find them perfect and B) acting like taking oil is equivalent to the USSR slaughtering Kulaks or whomever else the regime killed.



"Oppression is okay if it's done for the right reasons!!1!" Yeah, no. Fuck that noise.



Good for you. Enjoy your group's shitty little circlejerk of shitting on genuine leftist movements because they don't play into your authoritarian ideals.



Tankie is a legitimate demonym for "leftist" authoritarians like yourself.



I'm an Anarkitty. Get your terminology right >:c

1. That really depends on what you mean by atrocity. Honestly, everything a state does is a atrocity to an anarchist.

Nope.

If we talking about the government just killing people, I'll say that it depends on the person being killed. Did they do anything wrong, did they have a motive?

"It's okay for an authoritarian regime to slaughter millions of people if they kill the right people!"

The Bolsheviks were right in suppression sympathies of the white Russians. The whites failed to have great victories in the great war, they failed to improve living conditions, and did not offer even basic concessions to the working class.

TIL'd literally everyone the USSR's government ever murdered were simply all members of the White Movement and not a single innocent person.

10/10

For places for Cuba, it is even more meaningful. Especially when lot's of the dissidence are members of the Batista government. I guess the privilege rich that taked advantage of workers,shouldn't be beaten.

Which totally justifies any and all authoritarian regimes murdering innocent people as well, amirite?

Even non-socialist revolutions like the Islamic revolution of Iran were justified. The people of that regime toppled a leader that shove things into the backsides of people,and rise up against bad economic conditions.

>TFW revolutions that cause great deals of oppression are justified solely because of "muh economics"

2. Well, Famines in the USSR were of several factors. One is that Russia experience a world war and a civil war. Another is that the weather did not help, another is that their was economic miscalculations and the final main point is that the rich landlords burn their property(because if they can't have it, then one can).

Wow, you're quite literally denying the hand the Stalinist regime had in helping lead to the deaths of millions in the Holodomor. Amazing.

You have literally no fucking ground to stand on to accuse anyone of anything bad if this is the game you're playing.

3. It depends on the people being oppress. point 1 is all about that. Things are not bad for the sake of "Badness', but only the consequence are reason are the true factors.

"Oppressing millions of people is okay if you oppress the right people!"

4. So Rojava shouldn't seek out and kill ISIS sleeper cells?

Weird how I didn't say that.

I see that as Oppression of ISIS, which is good in my opinion.

That's not oppression. That's self-defense.

It's good for ISIS members to be stripped of human rights.

No.

5. Anarchist have been doing that. Marxist-Leninist have at least had gain popular support in various societies, and it still does. How come I barely see anarchist movements in the third world, and How come the anarchist have not created a society that has lasted more than 3 years. So It is the Libertarian socialist that are the true elitist.

The Zapatistas have been going on for 25 years now, and Rojava's been going on for 5, so you're entirely wrong there. Also, the fact that you don't see them doesn't mean you've made any effort to find them.

[Communal concils]

Rojava has mostly been alright. Very encouraging bright light in the darkness that is the middle east.

*Reads OP's contributions to the thread*

... but I see the object of this thread isn't actually to discuss Rojava, but just to diss them for every single little thing they have done. Including defending themselves from ISIS. In a civil war. Yawn.

So Rojava doesn't have flaws. These are not little issues, they are ideological contradictions. These Ideological Contradictions show that Rojava isn't such the fairy land that many see it as. As for ISIS, I did support the anti-terrorist campaigns.

[Communal concils]

I didn't deny Genocide.

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race.

The event know as the Holodomer affected people across soviet society, including Russians. It was across the nation, and everyone was effected. It's a myth that the Ukrainians are the most mistreated People in the USSR. Ukraine uses the narrative the holodomer to justify it's current policies, and it tries to change the famines of the soviet union into a Ukrainian only tragedy.

gen·o·cide
/ˈjenəˌsīd/
noun
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Half the victims of the Holocaust were not Jewish, and the Cambodian Genocide wasn't targeting just any one group.

Genocide denial/apologism is bad.

1. So is a simple military campaign Genocide. If the goal is to kill as much enemy forces as possible, even in self defense.Is Killing rapist and thief in masses genocide.

2.The Holocaust also included Gypsies, Slavic people and other racial groups. It also included political dissidence, sexual deviants, artist and disabled or mentally ill people. It deserves the title of genocide because most of it was targeted at racial and ethnic groups.

3. Well, The Holodomer did not have a defined ethnic targeted at all. We are following slightly different definitions. Honestly, it affected every aspect of Soviet society negatively.