"Everyone I don't like is a McCarthyist!"
Anyways, this isn't a "lack of understanding for basic history", we can all agree that Laissez-Faire Capitalism and enslavement is terrible. However, that does not excuse the fact that Marx created an ideology inherently against the proletariat you want to defend (as last time I checked, anarchy never goes well) and to even create this utopian anarchy requires a dictatorship that will never fall because it will be given to the hands of those same corrupt individuals that you would call bourgeoisie. Instead of actually trying to negotiate with reasonable debate, your ideology calls for the violent overthrow of anyone who you label bourgeoisie. Funny thing is the most successful attempts to fix these problems all happened to be peaceful (MLK, Gandhi, etc).
Secondly, this is not true under Capitalism because Capitalism is merely an economic theory. Communism encircle economic theory and political theory, and most of the time, we're at war because those "dissidents" either provoked us into war or because we're petty imperialists wanting to oil because we can't use our own oil for some reason.
And yes, I know what Batista is, but last time I checked, you must be deluded to think Cuba is anywhere close to anything outside of a pure dictatorship. We backed Batista because the Truman Doctrine said to back anyone who is not Communist (which isn't capitalism at work but idiocy) and sadly the states felt a non-Communist dictatorship was the best thing.
In regards to HIV, Capitalism is again not the problem here. They simply eradicated it, we have to many people with it screwing around. Not a problem. Also, that same health care system can happen under a capitalist system (see Social Democracy) and illiteracy is not 100% eradicated because we still have people alive from the time where African Americans were discriminated against and could not receive a decent education (which is not capitalism, it had to do with the bullshit racialist ideals of the time).
The Amish are not communist because they haven't either installed anarchy (if they even manage to get that far) or installed a one-party totalitarian system. Just because they raise a barn together doesn't make them communist. Also, no Communist state has ever gotten to the anarchist Utopia because every single one became a bloodthirsty dictatorship (and some of them even look like Fascism on paper; look at Juche).
Also, considering you're openly defending anarcho-Communists, all of those oppressors are essentially dissidents, especially since you even suggested once that the definition of alt-Right to you is centre-Right,
Also, that isn't revisionism at all. I'm calling it a potato blight because the famine was caused by a water mold that infected potatoes. Therefore, it is technically a blight that cause the famine, in which the terminology is still correct.
What I'm saying here is that you're giving your trust in the same governments that denied the Holocaust until after the war was over (they wouldn't believe Pilecki's reports of what was happening in Auschwitz). The same happened here.
Just because Stalin is an idiot does not absolve him from his crimes. He still forcibly starved a rebelling part of his country. While yes, the Kulaks did burn the crops, he still increased the quotas even during the drought and the loss of crops.
Also, the foreign aid was in response to the general famine at that time period. The Holodomor is a specific part of this famine; just because they don't find it "man-made" doesn't stop them from giving the USSR foreign aid to alleviate the situation. The actual thing does not mention any specific country, however this website takes it from the UN Convention on the Prevention of Genocide of 1948.
Actually, 1984 wasn't specifically talking about ultra-nationalism but the threat of oligarchy and dictatorships of the future (secret police, police state, punishment of dissidents, cult of personality around the leader, etc). Besides, it's not like there have been forms of ultra-nationalist Communism either (again, see Juche and whatever the hell the Khmer Rouge were trying to create). Hell, even the USSR had some forms of nationalism (not on the levels of ultranationalism) in regards to the country.
Anyways, this isn't a "lack of understanding for basic history", we can all agree that Laissez-Faire Capitalism and enslavement is terrible. However, that does not excuse the fact that Marx created an ideology inherently against the proletariat you want to defend (as last time I checked, anarchy never goes well) and to even create this utopian anarchy requires a dictatorship that will never fall because it will be given to the hands of those same corrupt individuals that you would call bourgeoisie. Instead of actually trying to negotiate with reasonable debate, your ideology calls for the violent overthrow of anyone who you label bourgeoisie. Funny thing is the most successful attempts to fix these problems all happened to be peaceful (MLK, Gandhi, etc).
Secondly, this is not true under Capitalism because Capitalism is merely an economic theory. Communism encircle economic theory and political theory, and most of the time, we're at war because those "dissidents" either provoked us into war or because we're petty imperialists wanting to oil because we can't use our own oil for some reason.
And yes, I know what Batista is, but last time I checked, you must be deluded to think Cuba is anywhere close to anything outside of a pure dictatorship. We backed Batista because the Truman Doctrine said to back anyone who is not Communist (which isn't capitalism at work but idiocy) and sadly the states felt a non-Communist dictatorship was the best thing.
In regards to HIV, Capitalism is again not the problem here. They simply eradicated it, we have to many people with it screwing around. Not a problem. Also, that same health care system can happen under a capitalist system (see Social Democracy) and illiteracy is not 100% eradicated because we still have people alive from the time where African Americans were discriminated against and could not receive a decent education (which is not capitalism, it had to do with the bullshit racialist ideals of the time).
The Amish are not communist because they haven't either installed anarchy (if they even manage to get that far) or installed a one-party totalitarian system. Just because they raise a barn together doesn't make them communist. Also, no Communist state has ever gotten to the anarchist Utopia because every single one became a bloodthirsty dictatorship (and some of them even look like Fascism on paper; look at Juche).
Also, considering you're openly defending anarcho-Communists, all of those oppressors are essentially dissidents, especially since you even suggested once that the definition of alt-Right to you is centre-Right,
Also, that isn't revisionism at all. I'm calling it a potato blight because the famine was caused by a water mold that infected potatoes. Therefore, it is technically a blight that cause the famine, in which the terminology is still correct.
What I'm saying here is that you're giving your trust in the same governments that denied the Holocaust until after the war was over (they wouldn't believe Pilecki's reports of what was happening in Auschwitz). The same happened here.
Just because Stalin is an idiot does not absolve him from his crimes. He still forcibly starved a rebelling part of his country. While yes, the Kulaks did burn the crops, he still increased the quotas even during the drought and the loss of crops.
Also, the foreign aid was in response to the general famine at that time period. The Holodomor is a specific part of this famine; just because they don't find it "man-made" doesn't stop them from giving the USSR foreign aid to alleviate the situation. The actual thing does not mention any specific country, however this website takes it from the UN Convention on the Prevention of Genocide of 1948.
Actually, 1984 wasn't specifically talking about ultra-nationalism but the threat of oligarchy and dictatorships of the future (secret police, police state, punishment of dissidents, cult of personality around the leader, etc). Besides, it's not like there have been forms of ultra-nationalist Communism either (again, see Juche and whatever the hell the Khmer Rouge were trying to create). Hell, even the USSR had some forms of nationalism (not on the levels of ultranationalism) in regards to the country.