KurtVonnegut [comrade/them]

Abolition actually started with legislation which caused a violent uprising from the fucking Confederacy

Wrong. You are not just wrong, but you are violently racist.

Abolition started with slaves freeing themselves. Nat Turner. Harriet Tubman. Without people like that, the Civil War would have never happened, slavery would have never ended.

John Brown was inspired by Nat Turner, and he literally worked hand-in-hand with Harriet Tubman, who seriously considered joining him in his violent raid on Harper’s Ferry. John Brown went on illegal (and violent) raids into the south to free slaves and then illegally transport them to Canada. John Brown murdered pro-slavery men in retaliation for their murders of abolitionists in Kansas. Do you think what John Brown did was wrong? Do you think arresting and executing John Brown was a good thing? Do you think Sherman’s march to the sea and the violence he committed against southerners is a bad thing?

I don’t expect you to have the correct response, because you are a violently racist, anti-black person. You honestly believe that rich white dudes sitting in a room writing some words on a piece of paper had a bigger effect on ending slavery than black people who actually put their lives and bodies on the line to free themselves (displaying your internalized white supremacy).

Please educate yourself. Start by reading The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America by the fantastic author Gerald Horne. Or maybe you’re too afraid to read this book, because it’s not written by a “safe” old dead liberal white man.

Voting solves nothing. If the Republicans are pro-genocide and pro-environmental collapse and the Democrats are also pro-genocide and pro-environmental collapse, voting is not the solution to our problem. You might as well criticize me for which type of shoes I wear, it has the same influence on Politics, which is zero.

If you want to learn about Stalin, I would start by reading Stephen Kotkin’s two books which cover his life up to WWII in detail. Kotkin is a liberal, so he is no fan of Stalin, but he does very thorough research.

Stalin: Passage to Revolution by Ronald Grigor Suny gives a more sympathetic account of Stalin’s early life, his extreme suffering caused by the Czarist regime, and his dedication to making the world a better place. This book goes in depth into the Menshevik-Bolshevik split, and why Stalin chose to side with Lenin and internationalist socialism instead of the more nationalist Georgian Mensheviks.

Domenico Losurdo’s Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend does not go in-depth in biographical details, but it is definitely the best “defense” of Stalin’s various actions. The main rhetorical technique is comparing Stalin to other leaders at the time - Hitler, FDR, Churchill, etc… To the point: Stalin never attacked a city with a nuclear bomb (like the USA), Stalin never caused famine and starvation for profit (like Britain), and Stalin never tried to exterminate an entire ethno-religious group (like Hitler). Nobody is saying Stalin was perfect, but compared to other world leaders he was a much more moral leader than them, and ultimately did much more good for the world overall, such as almost single-handedly defeating Nazi Germany.

Yes, the real smart people know that Stalin was evil like Darth Vader right?

Please read a book before you post. No investigation, no right to speak.