duck duck GOSPLAN

Petit-bourge eco-stalinist pharmacist. Always left, but never gauche.

[kfrigginmoney]

You would be less lonely under communism.

The majority of our problems socially are either caused or amplified via capitalist thinking that prioritizes dishonest, liberal interaction.

Approaching human interaction from a framework of scarcity and social hierarchy prevents you from meeting people honestly.

You devalue yourself based on perceived failures and you devalue people at large and apply a goal to just forming connection.

You rely on projection and self-preservation to shield you from approaching people with any real investment.

This is why you default to hitting on people before you’ve established knowing them. The risk is diminished when asking with the understanding that this person is socially discardable.

You don’t have to worry about self-examination when interactions are superficial. You also don’t have to worry about forming genuine bonds.

At the same turn, you’re terrified of deepening risky bonds that are actually meaningful. Those you interact with on a deeper level become too risky to approach because you risk changing the relationship.

This entire methodology is liberal in design. You are made to police your expression and you, in turn, expect others to also police their own expressions. The expectation is to soften reality and to present a version of yourselves that is toned down and more universally palatable.

You can spend months in denial about incompatibility making you lonely even within relationships. You buy into even bad couplings as worth “saving” because breaking up is also viewed as a social failure so you will hold on much longer than your heart wants to. Ultimately you treat relationships as assets.

This cowardly dance blocks you from interacting with people on the deepest levels and leaves you with questions about how your affections are received by the world or if you’re even important or desirable.

This is by design. Liberal relational science reinforces an internal schema of low self worth. It creates these completely inhuman, artificial metrics of partner value tied to outward projection, not communal harmony.

It hurts men most of all because very few meet the requirements of an ideal man and even those who supposedly do, are often lonely and don’t understand why.

Under communism there would be no structural purpose for this type of insecurity. You wouldn’t be moralized for having more or less wealth. You wouldn’t be so concerned with artificial social hierarchies.

You’d have full access to self-actualization because your interests would be ACCESSIBLE.

You’d be able to travel and change employment without as many barriers.

You’d be able to have better, more connective, and safer sex because of education and therapeutic access.

You’d be able to pursue choosing having children without worrying how they’ll go to college or get a job.

You’d be able to spend more time with your loved ones because you’d have life extending healthcare.

You’d be able to see your full potential and see the full potential in others without the lies and projections of a capitalist framework.

[kfrigginmoney]

[swarnpert]

duolingo is fun and all but they really don't teach you that much about the grammar side of languages and just expect you to memorize where words are supposed to go in sentences rather than explain why words go in certain places

[3liza]

they're totally shit at explaining anything. the German "idiom" course doesn't translate the German idiom at all, it instead gives what the Duolingo crew thinks is the closest English equivalent even if it shares absolutely no subject matter. for example, the German idiom "one drop overflows the bucket" is translated in Duolingo as "the straw that breaks the camel's back". so i guess English speakers are just supposed to phonetically learn the German phrase about buckets and remember without any reasoning that it means camel snapping? absolutely deranged

[bourtange]

duolingo is good for brushing up on vocabulary you forgot from a language you've already learned, and absolutely nothing else

[kfrigginmoney]

the only nice things I will say about Duolingo are that 1. It is very portable, and 2. It did help me learn Cyrillic. The pimsleur program is better in every other way

[kfrigginmoney]

Good thing I kept this tumblr the whole time just in case Twitter disintegrates

[kfrigginmoney]

From the transcript of a 1985 talk by James Robertson, the late supremo of The Spartacist League.

“I went from Britain off to Poland in about 1976. And I was subject to the usual American propaganda – you know, these Stalinist countries are horrible places. And I found well-fed people, who were healthy, well-washed, good diets, interesting food, good clothing. And then I come back to Britain. It was a lot worse on all these accounts. So I thought: boy, I’ve really been sold a bill of goods. Me, a communist for all these decades, and I have to go to Poland to find out I’ve been a victim of imperialist lies. They looked pretty good over there. It’s a country that used to be in serfdom where a man ate meat once in his life on his wedding day. So now the hated Soviet collective farms produce all this meat and ship it to Warsaw and somewhere or other so the Poles can be happy.”

[kfrigginmoney]

"Freedom is so much the essence of man that even its opponents implement it while combating its reality; they want to appropriate for, themselves as a most precious ornament what they have rejected as an ornament of human nature.

No man combats freedom; at most he combats the freedom of others. Hence every kind of freedom has always existed, only at one time as a special privilege, at another as a universal right." -Karl Marx

[kfrigginmoney]

I just completed a course focused on war crimes of WWII.

Here's something I wrote in response to an article accusing Stalin of condoning rape, which also (I belive) massively inflated the number of rapes that occurred. It also contains information relevant to your question.

While I am aware that sexual violence was committed by Allied troops (including the American GIs and British Soldiers) as well as the Axis troops, I found it difficult to believe that any leader would condone the act. Stalin was accused of exactly that, but the accounts of Stalin condoning rape (whether implicitly or explicitly) can be traced back to a single primary source, the book “Conversations with Stalin” by Yugoslavian author Milovan Djilas, who later became one of communism’s first prominent Eastern European dissidents and one of Stalin’s harshest critics. The novel was written some twelve years after the war’s conclusion, and contains many (otherwise unverified) “quotes” from Stalin.

It is no secret that Stalin committed atrocities against the enemy in WWII as well as against his own people, and I want to ensure that my attempt at seeking historical truth is not interpreted as a defense of those acts. However, I also feel that it is somewhat unfair to assert that Stalin or his officers condoned or encouraged soldiers to rape the enemy, when there are numerous other primary sources indicating the opposite. I found nothing to corroborate the claim that Stalin believed this a good method of “mentally breaking” the enemy.

There is significant evidence in Russian literature indicating that rape would not have been tolerated by military command. The concept of gender equality and the emancipation of women was deeply embedded in Marxist communist doctrine upon which the Constitution of the USSR was based [1].

Under Stalin, women were able to choose their careers and acted as active participants in the national economy. It is estimated that over 800,000 women served in the Red Army during WWII and some became decorated officers. It is likely that the empowerment of women in Soviet society was what led so many women to enlist. The author of "The Unwomanly Face of War", Svetlana Alexievich, makes this very assumption in the introduction to her novel, which is a collection of stories compiled from interviews with women who served on behalf of the Red Army during WWII. There are accounts in the novel of rape, but it is clear even from these accounts that superior officers would punish soldiers who were found committing sexual violence against the citizens of the territories they occupied. One interview with a Junior Sergeant named A. Ratkina reveals that there were harsh punishments for even consorting with female citizens, and that rape was punishable by court martial.

"One of our officers fell in love with a German girl … our superiors heard about it … He was demoted and sent to the rear. When we entered a town or a village, for the first three days there was looting and [rape] … Well, in secret, naturally … You understand … After three days you could wind up in court" [2].

In Soviet Russia, rape was an offense punishable by death [3]. While Ratkina admits that Red Army soldiers were likely guilty of rape, she also reveals that this was not tolerated by her command. Ratkina recalls that, when five German girls came to her commander weeping and stating that they had been raped, and this account was confirmed by a gynecologist’s examination, “we told those German girls: go and look, and if you recognize someone, we’ll shoot him on the spot. We won’t consider his rank” [4].

Additionally, many Russian soldiers-turned-academics have said that Stalin issued an executive order on 19 January, 1945, explicitly outlawing mistreatment of citizens by his soldiers [5]. One soldier-turned-professor also added that “4,148 Red Army officers and many privates were ‘punished’ for committing atrocities” [6]. I have not been able to find a copy of this executive order to corroborate their statements, but have researched the claimants and found that they hold prestigious positions in their respective fields.

Additionally, this executive order has been mentioned in several of the articles I perused, so it is likely that it existed in some form. One Russian website provides the text of the order as follows:

"Officers and Red Army! We are going to the country of the enemy. Everyone should keep his composure, everyone should be brave ... The remaining population in the conquered areas… should not be subjected to violence. Perpetrators will be punished under the laws of war. In the conquered territory, sexual relations with the female sex are not allowed. For violence and rape the perpetrators will be shot" [7].

While I am unable to independently verify the content of the order, I feel that I have found sufficient evidence to confirm that the claim that Stalin or his officers encouraged or condoned rape was false. It is likely that rape occurred, but certainly not to the extent claimed in the article you shared. Stalin was unrelenting and unforgiving, both qualities which assisted his pursuit of victory in the war. It is highly unlikely that he would have tolerated any acts that would cast a poor image on the Red Army.

There are far more primary sources documenting rapes committed by the US Army, though they are generally not easy to find in English. One such article can be found from Der Spiegel, which claims "US criminology professor Robert Lilly, who examined rape cases prosecuted by American military courts, arrived at a number of 11,000 serious sexual assaults committed by November, 1945" [8].

Additionally shocking is the evidence that, not only did American GIs commit mass rape, they blamed it on black soldiers and even fabricated stories to justify segregation upon returning home [9]. I would especially recommend reading this article, as few articles explore the rape committed by American GIs so thoroughly.

[1] Alice Erh-Soon Tay, “The Status of Women in the Soviet Union,” The American Journal of Comparative Law 20, no. 4 (1972): pp. 662-692, https://doi.org/10.2307/839036.

[2] Svetlana Alexievich, “And She Puts Her Hand to Her Heart,” in The Unwomanly Face of War, trans. Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, [epub] (Penguin Classics, 2017).

[3] Ger P. Van Den Berg, “The Soviet Union and the Death Penalty,” Soviet Studies 35, no. 2 (1983): pp. 154-174, https://doi.org/10.1080/09668138308411469.

[4] Alexievich, The Unwomanly Face of War.

[5] Sergey Turchenko, “Sex Liberation: Erotic Myths of WWII (Translated Automatically from Russian),” Free Press, May 5, 2011, https://web.archive.org/web/20140530214602/http://svpressa.ru/war/article/8271/. See also O. A. Rzheshevsky, “Berlin Operation 1945: Discussion Continues (Translated from Russian),” World of History (Russian Electronic Magazine), May 8, 2003, https://web.archive.org/web/20120401022017/http://gpw.tellur.ru /page.html?r=books&s=bevor.

[6] Chris Summers, “Red Army Rapists Exposed,” BBC News (BBC, April 29, 2002), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe /1939174.stm.

[7] Daniil Ivanov, “The Myth of Millions of Raped German Women,” State History, October 20, 2009, https://statehistory.ru/32/Mif-o-millionakh-iznasilovannykh-nemok/.

[8] Klaus Wiegrefe, "Postwar Rape: Were Americans As Bad as the Soviets?" Spiegel International, March 2, 2015, https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/book-claims-us-soldiers-raped-190-000-german-women-post-wwii-a-1021298.html

[9] Ruth Lawlor, "When commemorating D-Day, don’t forget the dark side of American war efforts," The Washington Post, June 6, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/06/06/when-commemorating-d-day-dont-forget-dark-side-american-war-efforts/

[kfrigginmoney]

i need this on my wall

[kfrigginmoney]

every time i see this image i laugh and laugh

[e-toad]

God this is just such a good fucking picture

[kfrigginmoney]

[anisetheapothecary]

We are multiple generations now with no experience with strikes, and I see a lot of confused, well meaning people who want to help but don’t know strike etiquette.

1. Never cross a picket line of striking workers.

2. Never purchase or take free goods from a company who’s workers are striking

3. Honk to support strikers if you drive by a picket line.

4. Join strikers on the picket line even if it’s not your strike, but follow their directions and defer to them while there.

5. Say “that’s great, the strike is working, the company should negotiate with their workers” whenever someone complains about profits lost, inconveniences or other worker-phobic rhetoric. Always turn it back on the company, who has all the power and money.

[daniel-oneiroi]

UBER + LYFT ARE STRIKING IN SOME CITIES ON MAY 8th! RESPECT THIS AND REFUSE TO TAKE EITHER ONE ANYWHERE. NOWHERE. NO, NOT EVEN IF YOU TIP EXTRA. THAT STILL COUNTS AS A PICKET LINE.

[kfrigginmoney]

Let us keep that in mind, therefore, and be prepared to see the Revolution develop itself somewhat gradually. Let us not be disheartened if here and there its steps should move less rapidly. Whether it would take an avowedly socialist character in all European nations, at any rate at the beginning, is doubtful. ... Without, however, attaching to these forecast a greater importance than they merit, we may safely conclude this much: the Revolution will take a different character in each of the different European nations; the point attained in the socialization of wealth will not be everywhere the same. Will it therefore be necessary, as is sometimes suggested, that the nations in the vanguard of the movement should adapt their pace to those who lag behind? Must we wait till the Communist Revolution is ripe in all civilized countries? Clearly not! Even if it were a thing to be desired it is not possible. History does not wait for the laggards. Besides, we do not believe that in any one country the Revolution will be accomplished at a stroke, in the twinkling of an eye, as some socialists dream...revolution under divers aspects, in one country State Socialism, in another Federation; everywhere more or less Socialism, not conforming to any particular rule.

Kropokin, The Conquest of Bread, on socialism in one country

[kfrigginmoney]

[kfrigginmoney]

But, when all is said and done, some inequalities, some inevitable injustices, will remain. There are individuals in our societies whom no great crisis can lift out of the deep ruts of egoism in which they are sunk. The question, however, is not whether there will be injustices or no, but rather how to limit the number of them.

kropotkin explains that the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare upon the brains of the living

[kfrigginmoney]

Understanding the 1947 UN Partition Plan

By Yousef

After many Palestinian refugees were killed or injured in the most recent Nakba Day protests, the events have forced a discussion of the period during which Palestine was depopulated of the majority of its native inhabitants. I recently wrote about

how the mainstream media is doing a great disservice by distorting a historical narrative they had previously reported on. But despite this, in an era where the internet allows for rapid fact-checking and access to diverse information, the discussion about the Palestinian Nakba continues.

Yesterday, PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas published an Op-Ed in the New York Times where he discussed his personal experience as a refugee. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to Abbas' piece with the token Zionist response to any Palestinian claims on the events of 1948. Netanyahu "emphasized the Palestinians' rejection of the UN's partition plan in 1947, while the Jews were willing to accept it."

"Don't you see," says the Zionist narrative, "they don't want a state. They want everything. We were ready to make a deal but they rejected it. All they do is reject, reject, reject, and that is all you need to know about the Arabs, so you can stop thinking now."

But wait a minute. What was this partition plan and why did the Palestinians reject it?

Throughout history, there have been various attempts at plans to divide the land. A U.S. fact-finding commission as early as 1919

was particularly prescient about what the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine meant. They were well aware that the trajectory of Zionism and the promises of the Balfour declaration would create havoc (emphasis here and elsewhere is mine):

[We] recognized also that definite encouragement had been given to the Zionists by the Allies in Mr. Balfour's often quoted statement in its approval by other representatives of the Allies. If, however, the strict terms of the Balfour Statement are adhered to -- favoring "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights existing in non-Jewish communities in Palestine"-- it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist Program must be greatly modified. For "a national home for the Jewish people" is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine...

But partition attempts followed nonetheless; the report of Peel Commission of 1937 realized that there was a pretty significant demographic problem in dividing the land into two states:

The political aspect of the land problem is still more important. Owing to the fact that there has been no census since 1931 it is impossible to calculate with any precision the distribution of population between the Arab and Jewish areas; but, according to an approximate estimate, in the area allocated to the Jewish State (excluding the urban districts to be retained for a period under Mandatory Administration) there are now about 225,000 Arabs. In the area allocated to the Arab State there are only about 1,250 Jews; but there are about 125,000 Jews as against 85,000 Arabs in Jerusalem and Haifa. The existence of these minorities clearly constitutes the most serious hindrance to the smooth and successful operation of Partition. If the settlement is to be clean and final, the question must be boldly faced and firmly dealt with. It calls for the highest statesmanship on the part of all concerned.

The answer to the question which required the "highest statesmanship" facing it boldly? Ethnic cleansing:

If Partition is to be effective in promoting a final settlement it must mean more than drawing a frontier and establishing two States. Sooner or later there should be a transfer of land and, as far as possible, an exchange of population.

David Ben Gurion's thoughts on the compulsory transfer of the Arabs are noted in his diary: "The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second temple -- a real Jewish state." While Ben Gurion noted hesitation to transfer in his diary as well, he ultimately concluded "We must uproot from our hearts the assumption that the thing is not possible. It can be done and we must prepare to carry it out." The quotes and more on Ben Gurion's thinking at the time can be found here.

The Peel Commission realized that to appease Zionist aims (majoritarian Jewish state in Palestine) in a "clean and final" solution, there would have to be disproportionate ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs from their native towns and villages. Not surprisingly, the Palestinian Arabs rejected this plan as any people would reject a plan that called for their own ethnic cleansing.

So in a final attempt at a partition plan, the UN General Assembly endorsed a plan that attempted yet again circumvent the demographic complexities that the Peel Commission report suggested be handled with ethnic cleansing. Needless to say, it failed to do so.

The map to the right shows the proposed partition of Palestine in 1947. The total population of the land at the time was approximately 2 million people of which 600,000 were Jews and the remainder were Palestinian Arabs. The partition plan, however, sought to give 55% of the territory to 30% of the population. Even within the territory allotted to the Jewish state -- the area in green in the partition map -- nearly half the inhabitants were Palestinian Arabs. This means that if such a plan was implemented, not only would a minority receive a majority of the land, but half the residents of the newly created Jewish state would either be transferred or disenfranchised from their right to self-determination.

When you look at the specifics of the partition, two very clear and important facts emerge: 1) No one in their right mind, putting themselves in the shoes of the Palestinians, would have accepted that deal, and 2) it is highly unlikely that the two intertwining "sausage-link"-shaped states proposed by this plan would have been conflict free.

Take a close look at this map and the borders. Have you ever seen anything like it anywhere else in the world? You probably haven't because such partitions do not work. And it wasn't simply demographic concerns that were at play here. The northern "sausage link" border was drawn to ensure that the railroad that went from Haifa to Beisan would remain completely under the control of the Jewish state. Ultimately, the vast majority of Palestinian villages along this route were depopulated and destroyed in the operations that David Ben Gurion made sure the pre-state government of Israel prepared for a decade earlier.

While the Zionist narrative might claim that the acceptance of this plan by Jews at the time and its rejection by the Palestinian Arabs shows Jews were willing to compromise and Arabs were not, in reality the Jews accepted the plan because they had everything to gain and the Arabs rejected it because they had everything to lose.

So it's rather disingenuous then, for Netanyahu or others like him who repeat the Zionist talking points on this partition plan, to attempt to justify Palestinian dispossession because Palestinians justifiably rejected their own dispossession.

[kfrigginmoney]

Ok, what is the Hambantota Port?

It’s a port in Sri Lanka constructed between 2008 and 2010, with chinese and sri lankan capital, built by China Harbour Engineering Company and Sinohydro Corporation, with a majority of chinese capital (85%). The port was conceived in 2003 by the sri lankan government as part of a project to develop the area of Hambantota and China was chosen as a partner in this project. [1]

The port turned out less profitable than expected and, as a result, the sri lankan government started to have problems in paying off the debt that was contracted with china to build the facilities. So, in a visit to China, the Sri Lankan prime minister negotiated the debt by leasing the port, with 70% of the shares being controlled by CMPort, a Chinese company, and the remaining 30% being controlled by sri Lanka's firm SLPA[2]. For this lease, China paid aprox 1 billion dollars to Sri Lanka, and has agreed to invest 1.1 billion dollars in the PPP with sri lankan government. [3][4]

It is obvious that this isn’t a “predatory move” from China nor a “handout” from Sri Lanka. This was a negotiated deal between two nations (the USA and its allies absolutely hate this kind of thing) where the best outcome for both parties was agreed upon.

Oh, and the lease was signed in 2017. Why is this appearing on the news now? It’s because the USA government sanctions against China aren’t working and they are now realying on the usual mediatic warfare to do the dirty job of imperialism.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20100306074012/http://www.slpa.lk/port_hambantota.asp?chk=4

[2] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2017-08/10/content_30420018.htm

[3] https://economynext.com/China%E2%80%99s_CM_Port_makes_last_payment_to_Sri_Lanka_for_Hambantota_Port-3-10973-6.html

[4] http://www.hirunews.lk/149301/framework-agreement-signed-chinese-company-to-develop-hambantota-port