Why is there no left-wing intellectual or activist who criticizes dekulakization (and decossackization)? Even among liberal humanist types, who criticize Stalin's Great Purge and the Moscow Trials, the liquidation of kulaks as a class and the destruction of the cossack ethnic group are either ignored, or their criticism is merely about the economical failure of collectivization, never about the moral issues surrounding the destruction of entire ethnic and social groups.
I'd say the reason is that while the victims of the purges and trials were fellow leftists, the victims of anti-kulak and anti-cossack reppressions were mostly independent landowners and military types, so they don't really count as humans deserving of compassion in leftist ideology. Just see the drivel they constantly produce against Southern whites, who are the American equivalent of kulaks.
And that's scary, because that means it can probably happen again. So please soothe my fears and mention at least one major leftist who said that dekulakization was bad because destroying the kulaks wasn't moral and ethical.
>>444609
>leading on this much
It's hilarious because the commies used to portray the kulaks like the nazis portray Jews, a clique of shady rich people deliberately destabilizing the society.
Even though in real life someone got classified as "kulak" because he owned one more cow than a "poor peasant."
>>444609
Because there is literally nothing wrong with "de-kulakisation".
The Kulaks must be liquidated as a class
>>444624
>let's remove the royalty
>let's remove the aristocracy
>let's remove the intelligentsia
>let's remove the skilled military leaders
>let's remove the kulaks
And in the end you end up with a population consisting of nothing but illiterate bydlo and Jewish cafeteria radicals.
>>444623
Exactly.
Now imagine if a major right-wing venue such as National Review or Fox News writes an article portraying Jews in a way that is reminiscent of their portrayal by Nazi Germany. They would be relentless criticized, heck, maybe even forced to shut down.
Meanwhile leftists authors are free to depict independent landowners on the same terms that the Soviet Union used to depict the kulaks, but that's ok.
>>444626
>leftists in the 1930s
>the kulaks must be liquidated as a class
>leftists in the 2010s
>the white race must be abolished as a social category
There should be a uproar over the similarity of these propositions, specially since the second one was proposed by a Jew called Noel Ignatiev, and the man who oversighted dekulakization was also a Jew, Lazar Kaganovich.
>>444654
Kek
Stay but mad about >muh dubble standards
>>444643
>Jewish cafeteria radicals
Why are there so many of these?
>>444674
Quod erat demonstrandum, leftists feel no moral qualms or remorse over their relentless killings of non-leftists. Remember that the next time they complain about anti-communist dictators.
Read 'The Foundation Pit' by Andrei Platonov
>>444694
You lose more credibility every time you use the word leftist. But keep posting, I needed some amusement
>>444624
>>444626
>still falling for the kulak meme
They were for all purpOses just slightly wealthier peasants who got used as a scapegoat.
>Weimar Germany is in the middle of an economic clusterfuck?
>MUST BE JEWS
>Medieval France experiencing a famine?
>MUST BE WITCHES
>USSR being an all around disaster?
>MUST BE KULAKS
>>444698
Thank you, that was what I was looking for.
>>444688
I have no idea why Jews in particular tend to be drawn to horseshit pipe dream ideologies, from Marx and Trotsky to Murray Rothbard and von Mises. I guess the centuries of inbreeding spawned some crazy form of autism.
>Southern whites, who are the American equivalent of kulaks
Holy shit, stop.
Zizek's not a lefty?
>It is at this precise point concerning political terror that one can locate the gap that separates Leninism from Stalinism. In Lenin's times, terror was openly admitted (Trotsky sometimes even boasted in an almost cocky way about the nondemocratic nature of the Bolshevik regime and the terror it used), while in Stalin's times, the symbolic status of the terror thoroughly changed; terror turned into the publicly nonacknowledged, obscene shadowy supplement of the public official discourse. It is significant that the climax of terror (1936-37) took place after the new constitution was accepted in 1935. This constitution was supposed to end the state of emergency and to mark the return of the things to normal: the suspension of the civil rights of the whole strata of population (kulaks, ex-capitalists) was recalled, the right to vote was now universal, and so forth. The key idea of this constitution was that now, after the stabilization of the socialist order and the annihilation of the enemy classes, the Soviet Union would no longer be a class society; the subject of the state is no longer the working class (workers and peasants) but the people. However, this would not mean that the Stalinist constitution was simple hypocrisy concealing social reality. The possibility of terror is inscribed into its very core. Since the class war is now proclaimed over and the Soviet Union is conceived of as the classless country of the People, those who (are still presumed to) oppose the regime would no longer be mere class enemies in a conflict that tears apart the social body but enemies of the people, insects, worthless scum, which is to be excluded from humanity itself.
>>445547
it does kinda fit though
