75th anniversary of Holodomor marked

It will be evident that people care enough when socialists realize that the USSR wasn't socialist, but was built on the merciless subjugation of surrounding peoples, when Communists, Leninists, and Stalinists care enough to acknowledge and apologize for the behaviours of those whose names they honour, instead of continuing to deny and deflect (there is a common understanding that party names reflect the historic commitments of party members, you know), when there is awareness  that Stalin engaged in capitalist deals with the West, selling dead peasants' grain, and that the West gave Ukraine back to him after the war, residents of which he further eliminated and lands which he further appropriated and Russified, so that capitalist Russia today can hand out passports to its Russian citizens in much of the region, and move its ships and troops around to consolidate it's own fossil fuel interests. 

In other words, when socialists re-read history through the eyes of all oppressed, including the earth, and not just through the propaganda of eastern state capitalists-who-pretend-they're-socialists, and perhaps notice the parallels on a day of mourning, then we may move beyond some of the knee-jerk reactions that have characterized the last century, and forge some useful joint alternatives.

thanks for your understanding, L.

So, how are people going to treat Holodomor on this board? Is it something that is okay to deny or minimize?

There were hungry people in the land of lush and green pastures here in 1930's North America as inconceivable as that may seem. My father and uncles were avid poachers of deer and moose in those days. FDR created government farm collectives then to deal with the collapse of laissez faire capitalism in America. There were no truly successful agricultural models around the world for any government to follow during that era. Since the 1930's, governments around the world are subsidizing food production to the tune of many billions of dollars every year, except in those countries where they've had neoliberal Washington consensus pawned off to them, like India. Iow's, no more trusting privatized food production to wealthy kulaks.

I am tired of this. Fidel needs to be disciplined for this comment "Iow's, no more trusting privatized food production to wealthy kulaks." As well as his continued attempts at minimization and denial.

Papal Bull wrote:

I am tired of this. Fidel needs to be disciplined for this comment "Iow's, no more trusting privatized food production to wealthy kulaks." As well as his continued attempts at minimization and denial.

I've denied nothing. What I've done is point out that these kinds of threads are highly politicized for the purpose of scoring our favorite political points with specific timelines in history visited and revisited by people who often learn nothing from the past. It's like marking Novembrance of the Eleventh Day while ignoring the fact that war and chaos and, yes, famines, too, reign merrily around the world at this glorious moment in time. Lest we forget.

Hmmm, a facit that is always thus arising it seems, in one way or another.

For those who do not know some of the history, of "kulaks", or even none, here is some simplistic information.

Quote:

According to the Soviet terminology, the peasantry was divided into three
broad categories: bednyaks, or poor peasants, seredniaks, or
mid-income peasants, and kulaks, the higher-income farmers who were
presumably more successful and efficient farmers. In addition, there was a
category of batraks, or landless seasonal agriculture workers for
hire.]

After the Russian Revolution, Bolsheviks
considered only batraks and bednyaks as true allies of the Soviets and proletariat. Serednyaks were considered unreliable,
"hesitating" allies, and kulaks were seen as class enemies because they
owned land and were independent economically.

 

Dekulakization

In 1928, there was a food shortage in the cities and in the army. The Soviet
government encouraged the formation of collective farms and, in 1929, introduced a
policy of collectivization. Some peasants
were attracted to collectivization by the idea that they would be in a position
to afford tractors and would enjoy increased production.

Whether peasants were resisting expropriation and exile or collectivization
and servitude they often retaliated against the state by smashing implements and
killing animals. Live animals would have to be handed over to the collectives
whereas meat and hides could respectively be consumed and concealed or sold.
Many peasants chose to slaughter livestock, even horses, rather than to pass it
into common property. In the first two months of 1930 millions of cattle,
horses, pigs, sheep and goats were slaughtered. Through this and bad weather a
quarter of the entire nation’s livestock perished, a greater loss than had been
sustained during the Civil War and a loss that was not compensated for until the
1950s.

This huge slaughtering caused Sovnarkom to issue a series of decrees to prosecute
"the malicious slaughtering of livestock". Many peasants also
attempted to sabotage the collectives by attacking members and government
officials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

 lagatta,  I feel that it was a genocide. It was a bureaucratic and political policy that was used to crush aspiring nations. The objective was not to kill Ukrainians per se. It was to break their will, to make their identity disintegrate. Holodomor was designed through its quota system not to totally eliminate, but to take out a certain proportion. If one reads the works of Ukrainian Communists contemporary to the event one sees such a view. One example is the film maker Oleksander Dovzhenko. You only need to watch [i]Zemlya[/i] (Earth) and read his diaries from WW2 to understand the terrible shock to Ukrainians that this must have been. Zemlya was a story of hope, of the defeat of inequality, and the world continues. An absolutely beautiful film, but I digress. His later words (I'll try to dig up a quote eventually) basically speak to the oppressive nature that the regime took upon the Ukrainian people.

The policies were pure, unfettered evil. Those words are loaded, yes, yet those words do not lose a single grain of truth. I take a very functionalist view of this event, Stalin ordered it, but it was a bureaucratic necessity within the terms of Soviet ideological needs. There is always that terrible bit of irony of Stalin being the point man on the workings of the interaction of the many people of the Soviet Union.

 Holodomor was spread across the whole of the USSR, but it was never solely a Ukrainian tragedy. It affect Uzbeks, it affected Belarussians, it affected so many people to effect upon them a new Soviet identity of Socialist Supermen. They were all to be subsumed into a new identity. I don't like to attribute this, as often happens, to the Russians. It can't be attributed to any one person or any one nationality.

 Sorry for the rambling.

No, that is fine Papal Bull. I'm certainly not trying to diminish the enormity of this crime, just relate historians' disputes about definitions.

People need to be aware that politics in Eastern Europe is a) extremely old and b) extremely intricate.  Some people who live in Ukraine claim ancestry to tribes and cultures from 6,000 BCE.  Newcomers included Finno-Uggric tribes, which settled around present day Moscow.  These 'Muscovites' became expansionist about 500 years ago, and the rest is pretty much history.  I've mentioned elsewhere on rabble that folks might be interested in a read of Hrushevsky's History of Ukraine-Rus.  Pick any volume of the tomes and you'll get a sense of the story which is extremely complex.   Suffice it to say that Ukrainians have fought to maintain a culture for centuries from many oppressors, including Polish and Austro-Hungarian nobles, Turks, Tatars, Mongolians, German Nazis, Muscovite tsars, etc. Stalin's imposed '32/'33 famine, and ongoing affronts like Chernobyl simply added insult to injury.   What's particulary 'funny' in the case of the USSR is that the really ancient Ukrainian culture is remarkably, well, one could say communitarian.   The culture was almost completely wiped out in the last century.  Ukraine's rich soil and resources have historically been a target for aggressors on its borders, and policies of forced displacement of residents, including mass slaughters and famine, are unfortunately not new and not unique.  Of course it's a form of genocide.  Of course it's also more than genocide. 

We can call what's happening today in many parts of the world 'corporatized genocide', and we can add to the list the USA and other countries, using an array of carrots and sticks, the IMF, military tactics to prod old fears, etc. to promote ongoing wars, hot and cold, and ongoing resource exploitation by both east and west. 

The challenge comes in clarifying misunderstandings, so people can move forward, which i think these kind of discussions help. thanks for your contributions,L

Fidel, the steel industry and mining resources in Ukraine represent separate stolen resources.  Russification was a tsarist policy, involving forced removal of existing residents, and replacement with Russian nationals.  The policy was continued under the Soviets.  Ukrainian language was outlawed.  Half of Ukraine is now effectively Russian in culture, even in Kyiv the Chernobyl museum is conducted in the Russian language.  The major industries are still owned by Russian oligarchs.  There is still no public sewage in most of the country.  We effectively have a Ukrainian population which still hasn't 'crawled out from the soviet cellar' as one writer on the prairies states.   Perhaps people can understand why there continue to be bristles when westerners still fail to understand or believe reality on the ground, past or present.

Again, if you'd like to get informed, there are many good histories, including those noted above, which highlight that Ukrainians in their vegetable gardens had a very effective and very ancient system of sharing work and 'helping eachother out'.  They were organic farmers, of course.   Only rarely did a family acquire a cow.  I think you're using the term 'kulaks' rather loosely.  The process of collectivization was not only a disaster, but also an affront to those who traditionally practiced far more collaborative and participatory versions of working together.   The complete contradiction of realities in agriculture is another element that western promoters of the USSR need to reassess.   And again, I think the dialogue helps.

in response to remind's q's:

-you are likely correct on the point that all politics are old and intricate, and at the core, quite basic.  however, some politics are understood very poorly, because of the role that propaganda has played, and the discussion around the history of the Holodomor reveals that misunderstandings do continue to exist, which should be clarified.

- actually, the agriculturally-based peoples of the Dneiper and Dneister River Basins were not 'expansionist' in the sense of conquering by force the lands and peoples of other locations for the purpose of taking over their land and resources. 

- i'm not saying the reality of 'being expanded upon' is an experience only of Ukraine.   but the current discussion is about Ukraine's Holodomor, and the history of the country is thus relevant.

- based on some of the comments to the initial post, it was apparent that some misunderstandings exist, hence my responses, which i hope have helped provide some alternate views,

thanks for your interest, best wishes,L

 Thank you leigh, I guess I see it all much differently, though when I say this I am not denying that millions died in famine, and were forced out and killed.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Quote:

which is why it is odd that some Canadian leftists don't 'get' the experience of people in Ukraine. It's almost as if a mantra of 'Soviets good/ resistors bad' crowds out any dissonant information. 

I think this comment is way too broadbrushing and indeed perhaps quite, erroneous and only used for whatever convienent purpose with which you are working from. As expressed by your not so forthright recounting of symplistic, at best, history

__________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

It strikes me that a core disconnect in some of the discussion here is that there is perhaps little understanding amongst babblers of Ukrainian history Before the Russian Revolution, and from diverse perspectives afterwards. 

I've mentioned a few brief points in this thread, but also have named a few good authors that are worth checking into.  Perhaps this approach could be called 'simplistic', but it's the best i can do in the time i have at present.

over to you folks,

Leigh

LeighT wrote:

 Ukraine did have a flourishing culture for many centuries, until as noted, expansionist neighbours made life difficult. 

Yes, Russian imperial expansionism was carried over to Soviet times, but again I think it was due to a perceived necessity by Soviet communists to compliment rapid industrialization of the USSR. They'd been attacked by Germany in WW I, and then 25 international armies laid siege to Russia in 1919 and attacking from all cardinal directions. There were contingents from Poland and Ukraine loyal to the Tsar who tried laying siege to Moscow but were beaten back. Many Ukrainian and Polish Cossacks were loyal to the Red Army however. And there were those who joined the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS during Nazi occupation of Ukraine and Eastern Europe and fought against the Red Army. Imperial Russia-USSR history is bloodsoaked by centuries of conflict.

Quote:

And yes, there are similar situations in Canada, particularly in Indigenous communities, which is why it is odd that some Canadian leftists don't 'get' the experience of people in Ukraine.  It's almost as if a mantra of 'Soviets good/ resistors bad' crowds out any dissonant information.

The Soviets inherited the spice route countries and Ukraine from Nicholas II. Ukrainians and Russians fought for and against one another in a bloody civil war. There are millions of ethnic Russians and mixed marriage partners trapped in surrounding sattellite countries since the end of cold war. I don't see Russian imperialism and Soviet imperialism amounting to exactly the same thing as some do. If it wasnt for WWII and western aggression, I think Stalin would have been satisfied with building socialism in one country. Instead it was an iron curtain policy and moving the line of defence west by a layer of countries liberated from the Nazis. They were the original national security state and used the fact that 30 or 40 million Russians were slaughtered by the Nazis, who were obviously aided and abetted by western industrialists and financial elite in the process of re-arming for war, as an excuse for them to turn inward. The Soviets controlled about a third of the world at the height of Soviet "empire", but they weren't seeking world domination as cold war rhetoric suggested.  

I'm going to take a moment to comment on Fidel's last post because his post reveals an issue which is very important to understand about Ukrainian history:

Ukrainians fought for their own self-determination. 

Ukrainian history is not 'about' the tsars, nor the other armies of foreign powers past or present.   Ukrainian fighters were not 'loyal' to the Tsar nor the Red Army.  At different points in history fighters aligned and re-aligned, depending on their best opportunities to achieve their primary goal- independence, and the opportunity to rebuild their culture and protect their families from the incursions of even more brutal occupiers.

One could consider a parallel with Afghan fighters today.  Do you honestly think they were ever 'loyal' to the US when they used US arms to fight Russia?  Or 'loyal' now to those who are helping them kick out western occupiers?  Of course not.  They are fighting for their own freedom from occupation, and are using the means available at any given time. 

Again, back to Ukraine, please do visit a library and read some diverse authors.  I'll recommend as well Pidhainy's "Islands of Death".  If you think Stalin was 'building socialism', then you highlight indeed why there is a vast political divide in Canada today. 

Where are the voices of teachers and leaders of socialism on this?  Do they simply avoid discussion of these issues, happy to have more bodies and minds onside?  It's appalling, really.

M Spector; you'll need to define who you mean by 'kulaks'.  Are you refering to middle-income Russian nationals in Russia proper, in 1921? 

The current topic under discussion is the Ukrainian famine of 32/33.  In the Ukrainian language, the word sounded as 'koolak' derives from the word for cog/ millcog, and is translated with the meaning of 'concentrated force' 'fist' and 'peasant'. 

Leigh, I guess the problem I am having with this, is to take the famine out of context, to what was happening prior, that brought about events,  to label it as genocide, as opposed to a crime against humanity. Plus ignoring other facets completely.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

M. Spector wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

Quoting Solzhenitsyn as an impartial adjudicator always impresses the hell out of me.

Why, is he too pro-Stalin for your liking? 

Probably because Solzhenitsyn is the Russian translation of Chauvin.

What the 'powers that be' fear most is that people at the grassroots will actually unite on specific points of change.

The far right is extremely happy when the the activist left takes an extremist stand based upon readings of history that are distorted.

Then it's very easy to discredit the left, because there are simply too many people who know the extremist position is in fact inaccurate, based on their own lived experience.  And without activists, there is no movement.

So it's actually in the left's own best interests to clarify old misunderstandings, publicly if need be.  Trust between peoples is easy to break and hard to rebuild, but I think the effort will always bear fruit.

best wishes,L

LeighT wrote:

  

- Fidel; I believe people in Ukraine are trying to make a country. 

On your second point, as I've noted above, neither the USSR nor the USA represent good models.  We need to articulate alternatives.

USSR's gone. And I think some Ukrainians are beginning to realize that they will never be considered part of "the west." Meanwhile NATO is still there with expansion of ABMS and nuclear weapons in Europe, supposedly to protect Europeans from a cold war era threat that no longer exists. There can be no legitimate purpose for nuclear weapons, and I think any and all counter manuevering by the Russians from here on out will be interpreted by our corporate sponsored news media as "turning inward" and "backsliding on democracy."

Quote:

Towards this end, of articulating shared alternatives, I think we could list things like, peace, public social services, fair trade, a sane financial system under public control, food sovereignty,  etc.  We do in fact probably share a strong critique of institutions like the WTO and IMF.  These are all important current issues that people on this discussion board share with probably millions of Canadians.   There is great potential !

Agreed. And NATO has been an important part of this western world system of financial dominance. There is no legitimate purpose for NATO anymore

I'm not exactly sure, but I think Ukraine was receiving a pretty good deal on natural gas from Russia until about the approximate time they indicated a wish to join NATO. I think they were getting as good if not a better deal on Russian gas than Canadians receive from U.S. majority-owned and controlled energy companies selling us our own gas, and using Canadian taxpayer funded pipelines to ship it, too. It's a good think Ukraine didnt sign trade deals like CUSFTA and NAFTA. Clever bunch those Ukrainians

Ukraine wasn't the only former satellite whose energy bills soared with introduction of market style capitalism during catastroika. One woman told me they were burning furniture in communal bonfires to stay warm in Bishkek in the late 90's-2000's.  She also talked about terrorism and bombings at turn of the decade, similar to what began in the Balkans leading up to NATO bombing and military occupation there. 

The version of history promulgated by the institutions of anti-communist mainstream media - on any subject at all - is rarely (if ever) something that the "activist left" should accept without question. On the great famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine, for example, the story promoted today by the right-wing Ukrainian Canadian Congress is essentially the same as the one told in the 1930's by William Randolph Hearst and Josef Goebbels, both of whom combined a disregard for the truth with a venomous hatred for any collectivist movements. Pardon me if I want to subject their version of reality to some pretty serious scrutiny before accepting it as "my" truth.

The received anti-communist narrative talks about the Ukrainian "peasants" as if they were a monolithic mass, all having the same interests and all opposing collectivization of agriculture. It doesn't talk about the fact that Ukrainian agriculture was based on feudal and capitalist relations of property ownership and labour, with the wealthy landowners comprising a small minority of the population, but controlling virtually all of the land prior to collectivization and ruthlessly exploiting the majority of poor peasant labourers. Nor does it acknowledge that a sustained and brutal class struggle had been going on in Ukraine for a century before the 1932 famine, and that the vast majority of peasants had welcomed and benefitted from the soviet collectivization program.

Agrarian reform and land redistribution was then, as it is today (in places like Venezuela, Bolivia, Zimbabwe, Egypt, and Indonesia), a major component of any program for radical social change. It was then, as it is now, violently opposed by the privileged and landowning classes, who attacked collective farms and killed peasants. In their efforts to "prove" that collectivization would not work, and to give themselves leverage with Moscow, they destroyed crops and livestock and otherwise attempted to withhold grain from the rest of the USSR. Ukraine was the "bread basket" of the USSR; this was a real threat to the survival of the soviet people and their revolution. What the Kulaks hadn't counted on was that Stalin was at least as brutal and ruthless as they were. They played a high-stakes game of chicken with Moscow, and lost. Millions of Ukrainians and other nationalities (including Russians) paid the price with their lives.

They, the UCC, or the so called  "Ukrainian diaspora" according to Leigh, want activists on the left, for some reason, to give them validity of action, or of alleged actions against them. However, they apparently are a single vision, single focus entity, with it seems no regard for the plight of exploited others around the world. As such, I would ask why they would want, let alone expect, left activisits acknowlegement of anything other than a stated realization that there were human rights abuses which happened to them.

Moreover, it would appear they sold their block vote to the Harper Cons  for 5.4 million dollars.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"