OurToothbrush

Okay, a "fdr new deal socialist" isnt a thing. FDR was a social democrat which isn't socialist. The new deal was a social democrat policy, not socialist.

Please consider reading "the abc's of socialism" it is a good introduction to socialist thought.

It’s a bit more complicated than that. Most leftists will agree with you, the USSR and other Eastern Europe countries that were communist did a lot of damage and most likely more harm. They committed atrocities. They were authoritarian. It was disgusting.

Most leftists are literally marxist leninists or some derivative of ML in socialist countries. I think you mean most white leftists in the imperial core when you say most leftists.

Literally none of your sources definitively claim it was a genocide except the university of Minnesota one which cites Davies and Applebaum who later says it wasn't.

Also lol, you use Wikipedia, a random university of Minnesota webpage, KellogInsight, and I dont even know where you got your last source but it literally cites Wheatcroft and Davies amongst others who do not argue it was a genocide after examining the soviet archives.

Gonna tell me how the Holocaust was a lie too?

No, the holocaust is a well documented historical fact, unlike the holodomor. The soviet wide famine of 1932 and 33 is a well documented historical fact, it is also not considered a genocide by mainstream anticommunist historians, who argue to what extent soviet policies and which policies worsened the famine.

Also ironic that you ask "do you also deny the holocaust" given the holodomor myth was used as justification to kill Jewish people during the holocaust and was later used as justification for collaboration with the holocaust.

Here is a well respected Jewish historian and activist on it:

https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory

They were more extreme than the bolseviks but less extreme than the monarchists, they were just on the side of capitalists so were painted with a nicer brush by capitalist historians

The dprk was actually doing much better with relatively little subsidies (there was a lot of specialization but the trade was rooted in equal exchange) and then the US massively subsidized the south when it looked like it might collapse because of how bad things were going. They wanted to maintain their military base there and where willing to pay out the nose for it.

The holodomor narrative surrounding the ussr wide famine of 32-33 was literal nazi propaganda from open nazi collaborators and was used as a justification for the mass murder of jews in Eastern Europe during the holocaust.

It was debunked in the literal 1930s in the US and now it re-emerges like a zombie during an era where fascism is on the rise. Even anticommunist academics like Applebaum, Davies, and Conquest say it wasn't a genocide.

“social democracy only works by exploiting the global south” canard.

Yeah, I could see finding this unconvincing if you haven't read theory, history, or were just cool with benefiting from imperialism

The mechaviks literally wanted to continue ww1 and have a psuedo democracy where the bourgeoisie were literally guaranteed a majority of seats, wtf are you talking about?

You should instead read "Riding the wave" which is a serious book that explains why social democracies rely on imperialism using one case study (Denmark I believe but I haven't read it in forever)

We literally have. Look at the massive literacy, life expectancy, and political rights increases under literally every single communist government compared to what came before them instead of comparing them to some utopian ideal that capitalism compares even less favorably to.

Do you think people there don't participate in elections? The party has literally 100 million members, people in China are politically involved.