you call wikipedia valid resources? at least download some solid pdf books, like "stalin's works" "democracy and terror of stalin era" "the unknown cultural revolution" lmfao, i went even further reading raw materials like cccp's statics around stalin era, and comtemporary materials written by lin biao and wang hong wen if you know who they are. what you're doing is no better than learning history from youtube. you're like reading materials made by hitler to learn about america. is that your literacy of learning history? reading things that people vomited out instead of reading contemporary material that comes from both sides? did you sleep over your history lessons or are you taught in an american school? or maybe you're just sttubborn because you like to defend capitalism by shitting on communism even at the cost of showing off your "intelligence". ffs leave me alone. i said i want a more intellectual discussion on this, at least with someone who has the basic literacy of learning history, not with a fucking barbarian.
Viewing post in [#CommunismIsEvil] - How about you work in the fields.
yeah what a good source, 30 new york times pages, more than 48 anti-communism propagandas, all essays from american and hong-kong universities and barely any source from mainland china, zero sources on mainland china statistics. three versions of the party shitting on mao after mao's death because mao pissed them off so hard by enabling the people to overthrow them. they even use 凤凰网, the infamous site of rumors as sources. i guess the "books" wikipedia used is objective and the books i named are propaganda, is that how you define objectiveness?
you're talking to yourself atm. i pointed out rational reasons why the sources are not reliable and one-sided. you never pointed out why they are reliable. not only this. you just said the books i named are propaganda with no solid evidence. everyone knows that a deny to the evidence with reasoning is far more objective than spread nonsense with "y0u jUSt 1gN0re the 3v1D3nCe y0u DonT lik3". you are not restoring fairness in any of the ways, you are inventing it. again i guess the "books" wikipedia used are "evidence" while the books i named are, according to you, propagandas, is that how you define objectiveness?
my claiming is more like "The allies were against Hitler, therefore the image of allied forces portrayed in Hitler's mass media is false." and "German official statistics' numbers had said that the Holocaust happened, which helps prove it true".
"The allies were against Hitler, therefore their evidence of the Holocaust doesn't count" "Pro-Hitler books say the Holocaust never happened, this proves it's a hoax" are however both what you are claiming. i have been saying that you should check the materials on both sides. I acknowledge that there was state empowerment in cccp but there is also social justice and Stalin helped with constructing that democracy. I also acknowledge the casualty of the cultural revolution but I acknowledge Mao's effort of mobilizing a democratic down-top movement to end "the cycle of history" (if you know what that is lmfao).
you are the one who only uses one-sided materials just like, according to you, "someone who defend hitler". you are not qualified to put such accuse on me when you're the one who's been doing it.
the goal your're claiming is unreal. the construction of democracy and the attempt of breaking the cycle of history is solid and what the people in cccp and china knew that they benefit from it because they had the power. your analogy is stupid.
now you only listen to half of the words and try to twist my meaning. read statistics and contemporary material from both sides. do you believe that the allied force carried out genocide when nazi won the ww2 and claimed that? no? then read numbers and what really happened that time.
not only this, i point out that your so-called evidence is nothing but propaganda and rumor. zero evidence from statistics and all essays from us and hongkong university? "evidence" from site of rumor and newspaper? doesnt sound objective to me. does it sound objective to you? i guess you like eating stuff others vomited out, gross.