I think it makes some points. Does anyone more knowledgeable on this subject have a different take?

  • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I thought his “holodomor” video was decent. He exposes Wikipedia’s anti-communist bias and shows how most scholars know there was no genocide done by Stalin. I’m more suspicious of BE for saying the “Uyghur genocide” is real but slightly less bad than Zenz is saying. He does have a bit of a centrism problem where he tries to avoid any strong position (beside criticizing Israel and US troops, which, based).

    • ComradePaulK@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, he still believes the “moderate” bourgeois historians who blame Stalin himself for mismanaging the famine. Was Stalin perfect in handling the ordeal? No, he could not have been, but he was not at fault for the famine. BE is right to say humans have to cause famine in some way (since natural conditions alone cannot do it), but he ignores the role of Western imperialists and internal saboteurs in aggravating the situation. Thus, he still has these anti-communist, petty-bourgeois views that make him worthy of much skepticism.

      I’m watching his video on the PCP right now, and the fact that he rather uncritically uses the state-backed “Truth and Reconciliation committee” when other scholars disagree with it says something.

      • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s still a difference between telling a liberal “our people say we didn’t do genocide so we clearly didn’t” vs “even anti-communists admit our leader didn’t do genocide.” The source matters for people even if they eventually realize it’s still bourgeois propaganda.