Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new book on cannibalism in the 1921 Russian famine

airmail.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 91 posts

Re: A new book on cannibalism in the 1921 Russian famine

#61

Post by disintegore »

FillardMillmore wrote: post #45
sampo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this was a mere 4 years after the socialist revolution Also in 1970s in Kampuchea, the 4 years from 1975 to 1979 when the Communist Party of Kampuchea was in power, they managed to get 21% to 24% of the country's population killed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia

Pol Pot and his regime were brutal. To minimize the possibility of dissent, they went after the educated class. Sometimes, simply wearing glasses would be enough to get you killed.

The Khmer Rouge happened as a direct result of US foreign policy.

Re: A new book on cannibalism in the 1921 Russian famine

#62

Post by Spooky23 »

commandlinefan wrote: post #50
lacampbell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting though how very well meaning utopian policies The largest tragedy of the 21st century is that people still think these policies and these people were 'well-meaning' or 'it just went a bit wrong'. It seems that only when we defeat murderous totalitarians militarily that we understand them for what they are.

> still think these policies and these people were 'well-meaning' It’s awfully hard to imagine that Mao actually was hoping that people would die, and that they would die en masse of starvation: even if he was strictly self-serving and heartless, he must have known in the back of his mind that huge populations of starving people are unpredictable and difficult to govern. The only way I can picture this taking place i…

I wouldn't be so sure.

Mao was focused on re-imagining the state and purging old ways of thinking, governance, etc. The insanity of the cultural revolution is a testament to that.

Re: A new book on cannibalism in the 1921 Russian famine

#63

Post by disintegore »

FillardMillmore wrote: post #60
sien wrote: post #41

This kind of knee jerk criticism of cannibalism is just over the top. Real cannibalism is nothing like this. Only reactionaries who haven't read the latest in cannibalism theory from Zydoniek, Foucariname and Chompsky would possibly put this sort of cannibalism in the same class as modern cannibalism. Not to mention that many people in the west have had more than a nibble on a fingernail when it's presented itself. Y…

I'm about 90% sure that this is satirical, but if not, please enlighten us.

You're 90% sure that "Foucarinal" and "Chompsky" are satirical?

Re: A new book on cannibalism in the 1921 Russian famine

#64

Post by merpnderp »

disintegore wrote: post #57
m0zg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but do you seriously think a socialist revolution can happen without a civil war? How do you get rid of those who don't want it? This wasn't the only famine BTW. My great-grandma witnessed cannibalism in the south of Russia (the "bread basket" region) in early 30s. This is the same famine as Holodomor, many people don't know but it affected some regions in Russia too. I heard her first-hand account of it before…

Some would argue that a Socialist state cannot be realized through the currently established democratic processes, even with majority popular support. Wealth has simply far too much influence. However there is still the good old general strike.

Socialist states can't be realized through democracy because it's almost impossible to get the majority of people to vote away their agency and embrace suicide.

Re: A new book on cannibalism in the 1921 Russian famine

#65

Post by Spooky23 »

vkou wrote: post #52
rayiner wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's useful to distinguish between deaths due to malevolence, neglect, and other factors. Capitalist countries have killed plenty of people through malevolence or neglect. The Bengal Famine if 1943, for example, was caused by a combination of overpopulation, British imposed inter-province trade restrictions, Japanese occupation of Burma, and diversion of shipping capacity by the British for WWII. It was not, however,…

The Irish potato famine, or the famines in India were absolutely caused by malevolence. You don't 'accidentally' have a famine in a country that is, in the middle of the famine, is a net exporter of food.

The Irish famine is in particular awful as the British wrapped themselves up in heart-wrenching moral concerns. They wouldn't want the poor Irish wretches becoming dependent on charity -- so what if the pig eats better than the farmer.

Re: A new book on cannibalism in the 1921 Russian famine

#66

Post by AlanYx »

commandlinefan wrote: post #50
lacampbell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting though how very well meaning utopian policies The largest tragedy of the 21st century is that people still think these policies and these people were 'well-meaning' or 'it just went a bit wrong'. It seems that only when we defeat murderous totalitarians militarily that we understand them for what they are.

> still think these policies and these people were 'well-meaning' It’s awfully hard to imagine that Mao actually was hoping that people would die, and that they would die en masse of starvation: even if he was strictly self-serving and heartless, he must have known in the back of his mind that huge populations of starving people are unpredictable and difficult to govern. The only way I can picture this taking place i…

Mao had an awareness of what was going on. For example, like the Soviets during the Ukraine famine, Mao's government intentionally outlawed starvation being listed as a cause of death. He was also so utterly convinced of the correctness of his ideologically informed ideas about farming (e.g., he was under the spell of Lysenko's ideas about unproductively close spacing because crops of the same "class" would never compete with each other) that he would choose to blame failures on people's lack of purity for correctly following his ideas and on imagined conspiracies of deposed landlords.

However, what you're saying is also true; there are documented historical examples of local officials, terrified of Mao, setting up faked fields with scarce crops from the neighboring area being transplanted into a single field specifically to "impress" Mao during his visits and avoid his ire.

Re: A new book on cannibalism in the 1921 Russian famine

#67

Post by varjag »

Frondo wrote: post #55
varjag wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soviet is a council, as in a governing committee.

As in the Russian word совет, lit. advice or council.

When Lenin pushed the motto вся власть Советамъ it was as I outlined above. In neither sense it means a person/official.

Re: A new book on cannibalism in the 1921 Russian famine

#68

Post by FillardMillmore »

disintegore wrote: post #61
FillardMillmore wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pol Pot and his regime were brutal. To minimize the possibility of dissent, they went after the educated class. Sometimes, simply wearing glasses would be enough to get you killed.

The Khmer Rouge happened as a direct result of US foreign policy.

I wouldn't argue with that assertion. The US provided material aid to Khmer Rouge insurgents at various times and encouraged them in other ways too, I believe the idea was to have some kind of bulwark to North Vietnam. In addition, Operation Menu, which was a military operation ordered by Richard Nixon, resulted in the bombing of large sections of Cambodia and of course resulted in civilian deaths. This, as is not hard to believe, increased Cambodian support for the Khmer Rouge and revealed the inefficacy of the then ruling Cambodian government.

Of course, this wasn't the first or last time US foreign policy would see its 'chickens coming home to roost', so to say. During the Soviet-Afghan war, US forces trained and materially aided the Mujahideen (Osama bin Laden was once involved with this group) in an effort to stymie the Soviet's forces and keep them enveloped in a financially-draining quagmire that would eventually prove to be the Soviet Union's own "Vietnam".

Re: A new book on cannibalism in the 1921 Russian famine

#69

Post by s1artibartfast »

lacampbell wrote: post #23
droithomme wrote: post #15

"Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine" is a related book, which covers this phenomenon in 1950s China. It's not a pleasant topic. Some people ate their children to survive. It's interesting though how very well meaning utopian policies can lead to this result. Planting the seed 5 ft beneath the ground will result in great crops because the seed will have to struggle and thus only the best seed will make it to harvest.…

It's interesting though how very well meaning utopian policies The largest tragedy of the 21st century is that people still think these policies and these people were 'well-meaning' or 'it just went a bit wrong'. It seems that only when we defeat murderous totalitarians militarily that we understand them for what they are.

> we understand them for what they are.

Im not sure if I understand what you are trying to say they were. Are you claiming that Mao and Stalin were sadists? I think it is more plausible they were altruistically motivated (greater good, ect).

Re: A new book on cannibalism in the 1921 Russian famine

#70

Post by AnimalMuppet »

disintegore wrote: post #51
goatinaboat wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people still think these policies and these people were 'well-meaning' or 'it just went a bit wrong' They are taught to think that by people who want to have another go. Of course those people won’t be joining you in the fields, they see themselves as card-carrying Party members. Think I’m kidding? https://mobile.twitter.com/bbcthisweek/status/67003748693718... We have a General Election coming up in the UK and milli…

It doesn't make any sense to me why some people try to rehabilitate Stalin, Mao and company. There is absolutely nothing to be gained in doing so. In truth, modern Socialism is far removed from Soviet Communism and modern Socialists need to recognize that "but Stalin" is a trite bad-faith argument and the people who employ it should be ridiculed.

But Stalin. But Lenin. But Mao. But Pol Pot. But Chavez. But Maduro.

Too many power-hungry zealots; too little competent governance. Too much destruction of the old order; too little creation of a decent new one.

[Edit: But Xi. No, he hasn't destroyed the economy. I look at the Uighurs, though, and put him in the "murderous power-hungry zealot" category.]

Post reply on HN