You can do all those things and also vote. So vote. Sure, votes won't make the system better, but you can make it harder for the fascists to get away with shit while you organize. Vote.
Voting is fine as long as you are aware that it does nothing to materially prevent fascism. It can't hurt anything to write something on a piece of paper. But the problem isnt really people like you. Its liberals who believe that voting is the be all end all of their political responsibility.
Electoral democracy is ultimately a misdirection. Capitalists are the actual sources of political power in western democracies. They unfortunately have a vested interest in the state getting more fascist and actually have the power to effect that change. So long as everyone looks down at the ballot box and then goes home to do nothing of material difference for the next 4 years, fascists will only continue to gain ground until they can do away with the misdirection of electoralism entirely.
Voting cannot be the only thing you do. Or you are effectively doing nothing. Which you seem to understand, but liberals do not. They actually want all other forms of political action banned. Because liberals ultimately protect capitalists, who are the real sources of political power. Leftist political action is a threat to capitalists. Thusly, liberals condemn it and recommend voting instead.
What I'm saying is that not voting is foolish, not that voting is the only thing that should be done. In fact I'm saying that other things should be done. We clearly agree, I just think it is harmful to spread anti voting rhetoric because while it can't fix things it is still a meaningful thing that can be done with immediate consequences for many.
We do agree. I only said anything in the first place because I didn't really see this post as advocating an anti-voting position. I would see anti-voting agitation as more along the lines of "Do not vote. Voting itself is harmful." As opposed to "voting doesn't work" or "voting is ineffective" which I see as more along the lines of criticism of electoral democracy and agitation for collective action.
He did in an earlier post posted shortly before this one, and the title seems to reinforce this. The image itself doesn't.
title:" you can't make the system better by voting"
image: "you can't vote fascism away"
seems pretty consistent, voting is not going to make the US less fascist
One post implied voting blue was voting for fascism, implying you shouldn't for the dems in the US. My point is that this is shortsighted and harmful. People should vote for the dems unless a third party is a viable alternative, they should also build up third parties to make them viable options, and they should also join political orgs and unionize, and do direct action.
Ofc more than voting is needed, but the republicans are causing more harm than the dems would have by miles and contributing to more voter apathy is not the answer.
The Democrats and Republicans do differ on the timescales for the social murder they promote, as well as the out-groups they view as acceptable to target.
I can agree that Republicans are causing more harm in the moment. However rather than blaming commenters online for rising voter apathy I blame that on the Democrats for their warmongering, suppression of internal opposition, genocidal 'foreign policy', and their utter subservience to capital when it comes to improving things domestically.
Please. Yes ofc the dems are to blame. They suck. And ofc they will lead to fascism down the line. Let's just not make things worse than they have to in the moment.
Voting is fine as long as you are aware that it does nothing to materially prevent fascism.
There is no such thing as preventing fascism. It's a fight every generation has to win, no matter what government they live under. It's always about delay so we can fight it again tomorrow.
Its liberals who believe that voting is the be all end all of their political responsibility.
I'll take a liberal who believes voting is the be all end all of their political responsibility over a "leftist" who believes not voting, and encouraging others not to vote, is the be all end all of their political responsibility.
Electoral democracy is ultimately a misdirection. Capitalists are the actual sources of political power in western democracies.
Yes, but a large source of that power is influencing electoral democracy. It does work, but all it does is reflect the choice of the people¹. It's just that the people have been manipulated into counterproductive choices for so long. A defeatist approach to voting is one of those choices.
No, voting can't be the only thing you do. But it should be one of the things you do, and you should do it intelligently. Yes, we all want a more representative electoral mechanic, but until we get it we need to accept the properties of the field we're playing on and act accordingly.
¹ Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and all the other ways of skewing democracy away from the actual will of the people only proves the point further. They wouldn't be bothering with all that if elections didn't have power.
all it does is reflect the choice of the people
And when the choices are all false ones?
"leftist" who believes not voting, and encouraging others not to vote, is the be all end all of their political responsibility.
That's a strawman if I've ever seen one. Nobody saying that "electoralism is a sham" is saying that's the "be all end all of their political responsibility." They just generally have a broader definition of "political responsibility".
And when the choices are all false ones?
Yeah, that was exactly my point.
Nobody saying that "electoralism is a sham" is saying that's the "be all end all of their political responsibility." They just generally have a broader definition of "political responsibility".
Yeah that hasn't been my experience. Especially in the last election cycle, I saw a lot of that supposed strawman. No community engagement, no actual political engagement, no workplace engagement, just "Kamala bad". People who insisted that not voting or voting third party would send a message. Don't pretend they don't exist, I've talked to dozens.
I stand by my statement. All else equal, a liberal who does nothing except vote Democrat is better by far than a "leftist" who does nothing except tell people not to vote Democrat.
Yeah, that was exactly my point.
I don't see it and that's why I asked. Could you clarify?
People who insisted that not voting or voting third party would send a message.
Ah, I misunderstood your classifications. I would definitely lump those people in with the "liberals who do nothing except vote" crowd, not the "electoralism is a scam" leftists.
Could you clarify?
The claim was that electoral democracy was a misdirection, my point is that all the effort to manipulate it demonstrates that it is the seat of power, and the oligarchs have merely occupied it.
I would definitely lump those people in with the "liberals who do nothing except vote" crowd
Since they're defined by not voting, they aren't. They are, materially speaking, equivalent to anti-electoralists. The liberals are at least voting for plausible harm reduction.
my point is that all the effort to manipulate it demonstrates that it is the seat of power
That's not at all what I mean about it being a false choice.
That's one hell of a hasty generalization. Putting effort into something doesn't make it materially valuable or useful. Lawns aren't a useful cash crop, valuable export or critical infrastructure despite the ludicrous amount of resources spent on maintaining them.
Since they're defined by not voting, they aren't.
Within the framework of a representative democracy not voting when you don't have representation is the same as voting for someone who isn't representative of your interests.
Within the framework of a representative democracy not voting when you don't have representation is the same as voting for someone who isn't representative of your interests.
Within the framework of FPTP elections they are different. Voting against the person who is least representative, no matter how marginally, is better than not voting.
So are we at the part where things need to be on-fire?
I do adore the flames, they speak to me.
Wear your respirator, hon
That was in like 2004. Not sure what red line you think you’re waiting for.
Splendid! Let the flames cleanse all!
"We can't just vote "
??
It says what you said already.
Have you seen crypts other posts and comments? He is not in favor of voting. Also see the title
Sorry, I haven't but believe you. ✌️
That may be true but this art has been posted before when 50501 was taking off. The original artist probably had more emphasis on the just, as in you have to do more than simply voting. This is probably what the other commentor was trying to convey.
This. That was a message directly to OP. One he will fail to hear.
Phrased like that it sounds super sinister 👀
or maybe just dramatic?
I was saying this years ago but at this point: no. Fuck that system, I will not legitimize it, or the assholes blaming me for their own electoral failures. Fuck you¹, no, never again. Not in this system.
¹and you're probably great! But still!
Fuck that system, I will not legitimize it, or the assholes blaming me for their own electoral failures. Fuck you¹, no, never again. Not in this system.
I get why you feel that way, but the reality is that if you abstain then there is no reason to even consider your opinion or desires. If your just going to say no because you're not getting everything then you'll just be excluded and everyone else will get something. Case in point the let's relevance today. They don't really support any part, nor do they work to make their own; as such you can ignore them. Protests? War? People that don't want to build a third party are unlikely to fight. Do you know who FARC is? They are a political party now. But they also were before.
no reason to consider your opinion or desires
Nobody in power has ever done this. You're showing so much privilege it has an event horizon.
you'll be excluded
So like always?
everyone else will get something
Oh like the federally free weed single payer healthcare and not funding the Zionists that upwards of 60% of Americans want? Get out of your god damn fantasy world.
there is no left and they don't do anything
Case in point
you'll be excluded
So like always?
Exactly, you've abstained and you won't organize a third party. You've done everything to not be taken seriously. The left broadly doesn't want to, so it will keep being irrelevant
I didn't abstain. Most people I knew on the left didnt used to either. Fuck you. I'm more than a lefty; I fit into lots of demographics, and not one of them has ever won jack shit by voting.
Everything you're saying is from a dog shit Arron Sorkin fantasy. I find it deeply offensive for reasons you can't and do not want to understand.
Fuck you and fuck your nation-state. You are why we have fascism. This is your doing and you can't even understand why.
This take right here is why people turn against leftist politics… homie is telling you to participate in democracy as well as other forms of organization and resistance, and you’re all “fuck that I’m not gonna do nothin”
Like this is a dumb hill to die on, and you’re polarizing people that could be your allies
there is not voting, and there is having your vote be conditional. i may not vote democrat if a progressive candidate is not available, but third party is always an option instead.
I do participate in democracy–I just don't vote and endorse the state anymore. Dems have poisoned that.
Saying "fuck no" to having your time, energy and resources wasted is the only way to not get wrung dry.
Or would you be convinced by me telling you to participate right now in violent revolution as well as other forms of organization and resistance? Knowing that when you say no I will interpret that as you saying “fuck that I’m not gonna do nothin”.
Elections are one front in the class war. Leftist keep ignoring it and wonder why they get nothing.
When the enemy has complete control over the weapons and battlefield which overwhelmingly favors them; why would you pick that fight?
And if leftist hadn't just retreated they'd have more space to manoeuvre. This goes back multiple cycles
Voting is for them to let us have one of the two kinds of mercy they're willing to take. I'll vote if I'm feeling kind that day
I feel bad for a lot of people who don't want violence.
I don't want it either, but they're backing us into a corner. There have been many, many attempts at settling this peacefully, and it just hasn't happened yet.
Are there any actual leftist spaces on this site? This place is as filled with libs as r/leftist back on Reddit which was always cringe. Need more active anarchist pages or those site's version of latestagecapitalism to get more use.
Thanks. I keep forgetting Piefeed is a different thing from Lemmy/Blorp so got confused why it wasn't popping up when I tried searching for it.
What the fuck is a blorp
It's the app I use to more easily access Lemmy on my phone.
For anyone just learning about Blorp, we also support PieFed! We also have imo the best multi account support. You can quickly switch between your Lemmy and PieFed accounts.
Like searching from the Blorp login screen (see image below)? I could probably have it figure out if you are searching for Lemmy/PieFed automatically
hexbear is arguably the most trans-inclusive place in Lemmy. Most people there are either Marxist-Leninist or Anarchist, and there is very little liberalism tolerance. People are also fun and make jokes about beanis :)
Hexbear, .ml and lemmygrad are pretty great. It's .world, lemm.ee and feddit which are filled with everyone too toxic or obnoxious for even the reddit libs.
Do you want 🇷🇺 to win the 🇺🇦 war?
No? The fuck kind of question is that? It's like asking if I want Israel to continue existing after everything they've done.
It's to weed out tankies.
Better than accusing me of being one simply cause I refuse to fall in line with the blue or red fascists.
Who are the blue and red fascists, I've only heard the term "red fascism" before
Democrats and Conservatives. Anyone who sides with capitalism, supports state sanctioned violence by the police along with genocide and thinks that human rights are something to be debated over with shit like "up to the states to decide" or whatever is a fascist.
People are using tankie for Russia supporters?
Tankies are people who identify as communist or socialist, but want a state where the ruler cannot be switched out through elections, or a comparable peaceful process. Such as the Soviet Union. In fact, the term "tankie" was first coined to describe people who supported the Soviet Union sending tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution.
Authoritarianism and communism are incompatible. Under communism, the means of production are publicly owned. Ownership over a thing means that either a) you control the thing, and owe no accountability to anybody. Or b) the person controlling the thing is accountable to you. If the person who claims to control the means of production as the representative of the people is not accountable to the people, then he is actually the owner of the means of production. For example, Stalin effectively owned the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union wasn't communism, it was the end state of capitalism, the complete enslavement of the working class to the owner class.
And for some reason, people who think Stalin was great like Russia, even though modern Russia doesn't even claim to be communist.
Not supporting the "dictatorship of the proletariat" types, but the reason tankies support Russia isn't because they think modern Russia is Communist. It's because Russia is fighting Ukraine, which they see as a proxy war against the United States and its puppets in NATO.
In the authoritarian Communist worldview, the United States is the vanguard of capitalism and the most dangerous threat to global communism. That's why they think Communist nations need authoritarian governments and powerful militaries: to protect themselves from the United States and its client states.
So tankies support anyone fighting the United States or its allies, no matter who they are or how bad their governments are. Because they think anything that weakens the United States is good for the world.
Me when all my knowledge of geopolitics comes from children's movies instead of history
Such as the Soviet Union. In fact, the term “tankie” was first coined to describe people who supported the Soviet Union sending tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution
Not to be pedantic or anything, but wasn't the etymology of the word "tankie" vindicated recently when it was released by Trump that the leader of the Hungarian Freedom Fighters ended up being funded by CIA?
Regarding your point of Stalin controlling the Soviet Union and dictating whatever happened with the means of production, I actually have stuff to add: union membership was highest in the USSR than it's ever been anywhere to that point of history, with unions taking care of a lot of stuff such as guaranteeing workers access to housing and healthcare, organizing vacation, ensuring workplace safety, and obviously representing the will of workers: in every factory there was a factory newspaper where workers could submit their complaints or comments on the work organizing, and unions had the power to change the workplace director. As for sources of this, you can have a look at Pat Sloan's "Soviet Democracy", a book written by an Englishman who left the UK to go to the USSR in the Stalin era and lived there for about a decade; also Mick Costello's "Worker Participation in the Soviet Union", a book written after a series of interviews to workers all over the USSR by the author, published 1977 so a very different era, tells a lot about this. I think most of the misconception that "workers had no say in production" comes mostly from western anticommunist propaganda and isn't substantiated by any serious evidence. If you have any works contradicting what I've said above, I'd be glad to look into it.
Lastly, regarding your point of "Soviet Union being the end state of Capitalism and the enslavement of the working class to the owner class": who was said owner class?
Source for the graph above, hopefully you know Meduza well enough to know that it's not very much aligned with socialism. Wealth inequality has never been lower in any Soviet Union territories as it was during the Soviet Union, not before, not after. In fact, wealth inequality was remarkably low compared to most capitalist countries (again as you see in the graph), and the highest salaries belonged actually not to politicians as you could expect, but to highly trained intellectuals such as University professors or military researchers (my sources for this are Albert Szymanski's "Is the Red Flag Flying" and Robert C. Allen's "Farm to Factory: a Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution). If there were an "owning class vs. working class" dynamic, wouldn't we expect high wealth disparity between workers and "owners", whoever they were? Why, if workers had no say over 70 years in industrial and economic production, was wealth inequality consistently at historic minima and not growing as is the case in proven class-societies such as capitalism (Russia post-1990 per the graph) or feudalism (Russia pre-1929ish per the graph)?
@Saledovil@sh.itjust.works no response here?
They gave a response which you can check out. It boils down to "I don't understand the difference between income and wealth, and I'm choosing to make up an on-the-spot interpretation based on my preconceived views".
You see where the blue line goes up vertically? That's when they go from de facto ownership to de jure ownership.
Anything's possible when you make shit up, but you should try making up something more believable once in a while
You're bad at this
Oh come on, you only had to read that little box on the right.
You could show a little dignity and just admit you're wrong
All you had to do was to read Boris Yeltsin's CV, CJ!
Zero dignity
What was Boris Yeltsin's job in 1995?
President of Russia, fucking duh
And what was his job in January 1991?
The same, jesus fucking christ you're tedious. If you're suggesting that a guy with massive name recognition from before the overthrow of the soviet union winning an election among the same fucking voters after the overthrow of the soviet union somehow proves your inane claims then please hurry up and say that so I can tell you that no it absolutely fucking doesn't and move on with my day
And what was his job in 1990?
Fucking your mother
And what was his job in 1989?
Fucking your father
And what was his job in 1988?
Get a job
So, to get back to the first point, why is it okay for Russia to kill civilians?
Killing civilians is bad, now go get that job
So Russia should retreat from Ukraine?
Lol try harder fed
Try harder fed
Try harder fed
That declassified document you posted doesn't say a whole lot. Basically boils down to "we gave them a phone call". If that's all the proof there is for collaboration, then your evidence is pathetic.
Secondly, you notice that blue line going up almost vertically? I've already lined out my definition of ownership, there's also a second one, namely that you own something if the sovereign legally recognizes you as the owner. What happened was that the Communist party went from controlling the means of production without accountability (de facto owning them), to being the recognized owner of the means of production (de jure owning them). The graph you posted just tracks the latter, that's why it looks like the Soviet Union had low wealth inequality.
If you took care to actually read the graph, you would see it says "income inequality". How income (i.e. regular earnings, NOT amount of property owned) relates to formal ownership of something is beyond me. Additionally:
What happened was that the Communist party went from controlling the means of production without accountability (de facto owning them), to being the recognized owner of the means of production (de jure owning them)
I don't even know what to say. Are you not aware that in 1991 the USSR was dissolved? How exactly would the communist party achieve formal ownership of means of production in 1991 if the system was discarded in favour of capitalism? What happened is kinda exactly the opposite: means of production went from formal ownership by the state, to formal and de-facto ownership by private owners over the following 5-10 years (the "vertical" line you talk about).
I'm under the impression that you have done 0 reading on the topic of actual worker representation, which you haven't rebuked and haven't given any sources too, and you're pulling stuff out of your ass from hearsay, because your comment literally makes no sense whatsoever
The people who took over the government of Russia were the same people who ran the communist party of the USSR. For example the first president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin. That's how they were able to steal all the stuff.
Ok, so why if they already de-facto controlled everything, did they have comparably much lower INCOME. What stopped them from having higher INCOME? Why do you refuse to answer to that?
What stopped them from having higher INCOME?
Nothing, they could probably have written down any number and that would have been their salary.
why if they already de-facto controlled everything, did they have comparably much lower INCOME.
Because money isn't real. If you control everything, you don't need to buy stuff, hence money is literally meaningless.
Ohhh, so now we bounce from your misunderstanding and conflation of wealth and income which now you conveniently forget about, and jump to "actually, money didn't mean anything, so it doesn't matter that income inequality was low". Good to see you keep making up stuff on the spot.
If you had bothered to read my first comment, you'd have seen that highest wages were given not to party members but to highly trained professionals of the intelligentsia such as university professors or researchers (many of the latter in military projects). If wages were used as an incentive for these people, then how come money wasn't real and didn't mean anything? Then they would have paid those professionals the same!
Your point of "access to goods and services in the USSR through non-monetary means" has a bit of merit though, but it actually backfires to your agenda. Food basics, energy, heating, housing, basic clothing items, public transit and even housing were astonishingly low-priced, with housing costing about 3% of monthly family unit income, and with metro tickets in Moscow not changing price between 1940s and 1980. Healthcare was free to everyone, education was completely free to the highest level for everyone, and there was universal access to such important services. Those things actually work in the opposite direction that you mean: the poorer people were heavily subsidized in comparison to capitalist states. It's especially relevant to rural areas, with tens of millions of formerly rural people being forced to abandon their hometowns after the deterioration or outright closure of formerly state-subsidized services (e.g. Moscow metropolitan area has grown by 6mn people over the past 30 years whereas the total population of Russia has shrunk by a few million).
Every single measurement of inequality has grown since the dismantling of the soviet state: reduction in life expectancy over the 90s and 2000s leading to above ten million premature deaths, lower childbirth rates, destruction of the public pension system, dismantling of public healthcare and education, removal of basic services in rural areas that have forced migrations of millions to cities, crime rates skyrocketed... What argument will you make up on-the-spot now?
I suppose I didn't explain it well enough.
You explained it perfectly well: you have as an axiom based on no sources provided yet (I.e. hearsay) that the "owning class" of the USSR owned the state property de facto, and so inequalily was perpetuated. Not through income, conveniently, as I already provided data contradicting that, so you shift to saying money was worthless.
I have explained and given you numbers and evidence on how access to many goods and services was subsidized to the working class and stopped being so after the transition to capitalism, which again contradicts your initial assertion that it was also capitalism and a class society with an owning class and a working class. Now, answer my proposition: given how universal access was I such things and how it stopped being the case, why did the "owning class" previously grant the working class access to such healthcare, education, housing, foodstuffs, energy, public transit, infrastructure, sports facilities, and even holiday resorts?
given how universal access was I such things and how it stopped being the case, why did the “owning class” previously grant the working class access to such healthcare, education, housing, foodstuffs, energy, public transit, infrastructure, sports facilities, and even holiday resorts?
Based on the personal accounts of a relative who visited the Soviet Union close to its collapse, the answer is that the working class didn't have access to such things. One thing the Soviet Union had was hotels were you could only stay if you could pay with Western currency. People needing to line up for basic goods.
And lets not forget that the Soviet Union isn't around anymore. Your supposed worker's paradise collapsed, and the ones at helm got rich in the process.
People needing to line up for basic goods
This is, as you say, the Soviet Union close to its dissolution. These are the post-1985 times of Perestroika, in which unsuccessful liberal reforms were implemented to Soviet industry in a radical manner, such as overnight replacing 50% of resource allocation by planning committee to markets that didnt exist, and general chaos ensued. It was a big mistake that led to issues such as bread lines, but it's specific to the late 80s. You and I have lived the lack of stock of basic goods in supermarkets such as toilet paper and sunflower oil or eggs from particular historical events. Bread lines just did not happen in the USSR from the postwar recovery to the perestroika, and focusing on a few years of turmoil due to war or to bad policy towards the end isnt accurate of the experience of the rest of the time.
Based on the personal accounts of a relative
Then do your reading, mate, I'm sorry. I have relatives who have personal accounts of the streets being dangerous just because they're racist pieces of shit and saw a black person. Look at the crime rates of my area and they're at historic low, despite what personal accounts say. If you want personal accounts, go ask an old soviet person, most old people in Russia want the USSR back, and it was the case in Ukraine too until 10 years ago. Go ask old people in former Yugoslavia whether life was better under Tito or on what ensued. Or, be materialist, and don't "listen to one personal account": do your reading of actually researched studies. I gave you plenty of sources for my information regarding foodstuffs, access to housing and work, access to public transit, urban planning, infrastructure and the rural exodus since 1990, education, healthcare, sports... The information is there, and these books use sources that you can check by yourself. So please, don't tell me "but I heard a relative say something different".
Tankies support Russia but Russia supporters aren't all tankies
You seem to care so much about Ukrainians. Surely then you support the Soviet Union, which in 1991 71.5% of Ukrainians voted to uphold and whose antidemocratic dissolution led to the worst humanitarian crisis in the history of post-WW2 Europe:
Surely you support the system that kept Ukraine well-fed, industrialized and at peace with the neighboring sister region, which maintained Ukrainian presidents of the entire Union such as Khrushchev and Brezhnev, and whose dissolution led to Ukraine becoming the poorest country in Europe?
The question asked in the 1991 Soviet Union Referendum was "Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any ethnicity will be fully guaranteed?" It would have drastically reformed the Soviet Union if it had succeeded. And funnily enough, it was a coup by hardliners in the communist party that prevented the reforms (New Union Treaty). This coup, while not successful in seizing power, ultimately lead to the Soviet government losing influence, which in turn resulted in its dissolution. By the time the Supreme Soviet voted to formally dissolve the Soviet Union, it had de-facto already ceased to exist.
And while 71.5% of Ukrainians voted in favor of the New Union Treaty, 81.7% voted for an independent Ukraine.
From your latter referendum:
The declaration also proclaimed that the republic has intent to become "a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs,"
Surely then you agree that the coming Ukrainian capitalist government violated the Ukrainian popular will by allowing NATO troops to be stationed in Ukraine more than a decade ago as confirmed by Jen Stoltenberg?
You mentioned nothing about the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe, only focusing on technicalities over referenda. My question stands: do you support the regime change that led to the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe, the war in Ukraine, and which prematurely ended the lives of millions of Ukrainians purely through economic destruction? Or do you want to focus on bickering over violated referenda instead of the material living conditions of people?
Surely then you agree that the coming Ukrainian capitalist government violated the Ukrainian popular will by allowing NATO troops to be stationed in Ukraine more than a decade ago as confirmed by Jen Stoltenberg?
I wonder if something happened to make them change their mind on neutrality
You mentioned nothing about the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe, only focusing on technicalities over referenda.
Because there's nothing to say about it other than that it was bad. And I honestly don't get what point you're trying to make. The Ukrainian people, along with ~70% of the Soviet Union, voted to reform the Soviet Union. Hardliners in the Communist Party staged a coup which stopped the New Union Treaty from being signed. Afterwards, the Soviet Union fell apart, and was then formally dissolved.
And when the Crimean annexation by Russia took place, where was the referendum to allow NATO troops? Or does the government suddenly get the unilateral decision-making power when it comes to NATO?
Because there's nothing to say about it other than that it was bad
Yes, there is plenty to say, actually. You could, for example, stop pretending that you actually do care about the well-being of Ukrainian people, since you apparently have no mention of the millions of deaths from destruction of public healthcare, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, suicide, shitty diet and outright hunger that took place after 1991 and kept happening as Ukraine became the poorest country in Europe. You could admit that you only care about Ukrainians suffering now because the war happens to be against the geopolitical enemy of your country.
If you gave one flying fuck about the well-being of Ukrainians, you'd be supporting communism and the Soviet Union right now, since its disintegration led to the worst humanitarian crisis the country has seen since the Nazis invaded it, and to an ever-ongoing disintegration of public services which led to millions more premature deaths than the illegal Russian invasion. You would be complaining about Russian capitalism which is the one that invaded Ukraine, and you'd understand that there was no such war during Soviet times. It is precisely capitalism that brought all of this to Ukraine, and if you cared genuinely about Ukrainians and wished the best for them instead of using them as a pawn for your media-induced hatred of Russia, you'd wish for the USSR never to have fallen.
You've shown us in other comments that you've done no reading on the topic to the point that you don't even bother to understand the difference between income and wealth, and you make up on-the-spot assumptions from your ill-informed, poorly-read, west-propagandized version of the topic. The problem isn't that you do this, the problem is that you do this while claiming to be a leftist/anarchist. I'll tell you something: if you, as a leftist/anarchist, share 90% of your opinion about a geopolitical enemy of the USA with the CIA, you're doing something wrong.
Yes, there is plenty to say, actually. You could, for example, stop pretending that you actually do care about the well-being of Ukrainian people, since you apparently have no mention of the millions of deaths from destruction of public healthcare, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, suicide, shitty diet and outright hunger that took place after 1991 and kept happening as Ukraine became the poorest country in Europe. You could admit that you only care about Ukrainians suffering now because the war happens to be against the geopolitical enemy of your country.
The hardliners of the communist party prevented the needed reforms to prevent the chaotic collapse of the Soviet Unions, which would have prevented, or at least mitigated, the "millions of deaths from destruction of public healthcare, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, suicide, shitty diet and outright hunger that took place after 1991". And if Lenin hadn't betrayed the revolution, we wouldn't have had the Holodomor. The Soviet Union fucked Ukraine first through malice, then through incompetence.
If you gave one flying fuck about the well-being of Ukrainians, you’d be supporting communism and the Soviet Union right now, since its disintegration led to the worst humanitarian crisis the country has seen since the Nazis invaded it, and to an ever-ongoing disintegration of public services which led to millions more premature deaths than the illegal Russian invasion. You would be complaining about Russian capitalism which is the one that invaded Ukraine, and you’d understand that there was no such war during Soviet times. It is precisely capitalism that brought all of this to Ukraine, and if you cared genuinely about Ukrainians and wished the best for them instead of using them as a pawn for your media-induced hatred of Russia, you’d wish for the USSR never to have fallen.
The one mostly responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union is the communist party of the Soviet Union.
You’ve shown us in other comments that you’ve done no reading on the topic to the point that you don’t even bother to understand the difference between income and wealth, and you make up on-the-spot assumptions from your ill-informed, poorly-read, west-propagandized version of the topic. The problem isn’t that you do this, the problem is that you do this while claiming to be a leftist/anarchist. I’ll tell you something: if you, as a leftist/anarchist, share 90% of your opinion about a geopolitical enemy of the USA with the CIA, you’re doing something wrong.
At least I'm coherent, unlike you. The fault for the collapse of the Soviet Unions lies by its incompetent government.
So everything bad that happens during communism is communism's fault, and everything bad that happens after communism is also communism's fault, gotcha.
Btw, keep in mind that you're being a CIA pawn when you make such political use of "Holodomor":
It's a western-promoted propaganda word to refer to the Soviet Famine of the collectivization effort, and it's used to blow over the Russian and Central-Asian deaths from the famine as if only Ukrainians had suffered it. It attempts to turn an unfortunate hunger during the first successful nation-wide land collectivization in human history into some sort of manufactured genocide of Ukrainians now that they can be used as a token to promote hate on communism and Russians. Do you also have a special scary word to refer to, e.g., the Bengal Famine in India, or is it something reserved to the enemies of capitalism?
So everything bad that happens during communism is communism’s fault, and everything bad that happens after communism is also communism’s fault, gotcha.
I'm blaming the leadership of the Soviet Union, not communism. The Soviet Union wasn't communist, and neither was the communist party of the Soviet Union. And yes, if you cause a disaster through incompetence, then You're also responsible to the long term consequences caused by said disaster.
Now, the holodomor happened 220 years ago. No, wait, it was 1932-1933. Okay, I realize 1800-2022 is the default time range, still, it's quite pointless to look for mentions of a concept in text from before it happened. Secondly, since the Holodomor refers to a specific event, is is capitalized.
Here is the graph with your methodical errors corrected.
It attempts to turn an unfortunate hunger during the first successful nation-wide land collectivization in human history
succesful
Dude, 3.5 million deaths (That's the low estimate, by the way) through famine does not qualify as "successful nation-wide land collectivization".
The Soviet Union wasn’t communist
How so? I already dispelled your erroneous, CIA-manufactured understanding of ownership of the means of production in the USSR and gave you my sources, to which you haven't replied other than by making up stuff on the spot. Would you care to argue otherwise from data?
Here is the graph with your methodical errors corrected
Thanks, I wasn't aware of the caps-sensitivity of the Ngram viewer, good point. Regardless, you do notice that your graph proves further my point, right? That "Holodomor" is a word essentially unused from 1930 to 2000, and now it grows in usage each year as a consecuence of unaware pro-capitalist propagandists like you. I repeat: do you use such scary words for capitalist-inflicted famines, or is it something you reserve for punching to your left?
Dude, 3.5 million deaths (That’s the low estimate, by the way) through famine does not qualify as “successful nation-wide land collectivization”.
Depends. Famines were commonplace in the Russian Empire, and it's to be expected that in a country in preindustrial agricultural production famines would happen. Ultimately there were mistakes during the land collectivization that led to unnecessary degrees of famine, true, but remember, it was the only successful attempt in the sense that it did collectivize land in a long-lasting and widespread manner, which had been attempted countless times over the past 5 millenia with no success until that point and many deaths in every attempt, e.g. the Gracchi brothers already attempted land collectivization in ancient Rome.
The collectivization of agriculture in the USSR enabled the first ever case of a state-owned industrial revolution, which managed to make the country grow by 10-15% YEARLY in economic output. The former Russian Empire went from being a pre-capitalist agrarian society to becoming an industrializing nation in 10 years, and that wasn't out of desire, it was out of necessity. The 1929 collectivization coincides in time (not by coincidence) with the first 5-year plan, which set in motion the industrialization of the USSR that would lead to an increase of life expectancy from 30 years of age to 60 in 30 years, even with the most devastating war in history inbetween those years. Not only did it solve hunger forever and allow for widespread healthcare, it also enabled the industrial revolution that ended up DEFEATING NAZISM. Nazis had plans to murder and forcibly reallocate all Slavic and many other peoples between Germany and Urals, which amounts to hundreds of millions of people. By defeating Nazism, the industrial revolution of the USSR, kicked off in 1929, effectively saved TENS OF MILLIONS of lives from genocide, and then gave those very people healthcare and guaranteed food that DOUBLED life expectancy in a formerly feudal backwards empire. For reference, a comparable country in economic situation in 1930 would be Brazil, which by 1965 had a life expectancy of 55 years, where at that point USSR had raised it to 68. Multiply by 200 million lives, how many tens of millions of lives saved is that?
Now tell me: knowing how many tens if not hundreds of millions of lives were saved by the 1929 collectivization and industrial plans, do you still deny its success?
Well, it's ten PM. I'll read it later.
Read it yet?
I already dispelled your erroneous, CIA-manufactured understanding of ownership of the means of production in the USSR and gave you my sources, to which you haven’t replied other than by making up stuff on the spot.
I must say that I haven't read your sources. So I don't even have a way of telling what they say.
My thesis mostly hinges on the Soviet Union not being democratic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union.People could only vote in favor or against the Bloc of Communists and Non-Partisans, which always won >99% of the votes. This is impossible to achieve in a functioning democracy, especially not over decades
That “Holodomor” is a word essentially unused from 1930 to 2000, and now it grows in usage each year
You also need to consider that the Soviet Union kept the information classified until the 1980s, when it was declassified as part of Glasnost. So, why did they keep it hidden for literal decades?
Looking at those graphs you posted, it seems like Russia didn't break 70 until 2015, which Brazil reached around the year 2000. And why does Russia's life expectancy spike upwards right around the time the Soviet Union collapsed? And why does did it mostly decline between 1975 and 2005? But yeah, other than that, it's a quite impressive growth. Still leaves the question as to why the Soviet Union just collapsed?
My thesis mostly hinges on the Soviet Union not being democratic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Soviet_Union.
Exactly, your material and historical analysis of the Soviet Union is based off of NATOpedia.
In short: Wikipedia is primarily edited by white young males of english-speaking countries, so it features the bias or young males of English a speaking countries. This is well-known and even has Wikipedia articles dedicated to it. In particular, source selection on English Wikipedia is mostly taken from western news sources, so it reflects the bias of western news sources. Western news sources present systematic pro-western bias in geopolitically sensitive issues, you may recall the behaviour of western news sources regarding Palestine up to a few years ago, with no media talking of genocide and presenting the occupation of Palestine as a "both sides issue". Other, possibly more egregious cases you may or not remember are Nayirah's Testimony or the media flip on coverage of Russia in European countries, where up to 2022 Putin was said to be a "great governor and Russian patriot" (e.g. Francisco Marhuenda), which is now unthinkable. If you're interested in this issue with Wikipedia, I wrote this detailed post about it some time ago.
I hope you, a self-declared socialist from what I've seen on your post history, will reflect on using mainstream western sources to analyze topics that are sensitive to western geopolitics as is the case for communism, we're well aware of what the red scare in the US entailed and the lies that have been spread about socialism in general (not just the Soviet project) by the US state propaganda apparatus over the past century.
I encourage you to do some reading of my sources, especially Albert Szymanski's "Human Rights in the Soviet Union", which dispells a ton of western-manufactured myths about the USSR using mostly western academic sources.
And why does Russia's life expectancy spike upwards right around the time the Soviet Union collapsed?
On the graph you can see Russia's life expectancy peaked in 1990, then fell for one and a half decades coinciding with the dismantling of the USSR, and then in 2005 it starts to rise back, but doesnt reach pre-1990 levels until about 2015, so life expectancy didnt recover from capitalism until 25 years of technological advances passed. Regarding Brazil, yes, Brazil surpassed life expectancy in Russia during the crisis of the dismantling, I do think this supports my thesis that the dismantling murdered millions (by Paul Cockshott's calculations, about 5-10 million in Russia alone).
Still leaves the question as to why the Soviet Union just collapsed?
If there were a class of owners strongly gripping to power in order to keep exploiting the majority of workers, you would expect very violent revolutions being needed to dismantle the system and remove them from power, but the transition to capitalism in the Eastern Block was overwhelmingly peaceful, which again supports my thesis that there wasn't an owning class enjoying the fruits of others' labour. As to why the USSR was dismantled this is a long topic, and if you're interested in some materialist historical analysis, I recommend "Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union" by Robert Keeran and Thomas Kenny. It gives a good historical outlook on how it's possible that the USSR survived something as impossibly difficult as WW2 and the murder of 25 million Soviet citizens (13% of the population) by Nazis, but it was dismantled in half a decade since the start of the perestroika in 1985.
Please, you're patently showing that the reading you've done of the topic of the USSR is superficial and based off primarily western anticommunist sources. I encourage you to keep an open mind and read more about the project that uplifted 150 million peasants in the Russian Empire from extreme poverty to being the second most powerful nation on Earth, guaranteeing healthcare, education, housing, work, not performing unequal exchange or economic imperialism with any sort of colony unlike US and Europe with Africa and Latin America, and helping emancipatory movements such as that of Vietnam or Cuba.
Stop looking for excuses with on-the-spot reading of graphs or moving the goalposts (first wealth and de-jure ownership, then income not mattering, then radio silence about widespread access to social services and essential goods).
Exactly, your material and historical analysis of the Soviet Union is based off of NATOpedia.
So, got the real numbers for the election results somewhere?
Again, way to ignore 90% of my comment.
Democracy isn't when there's three parties, it's when people generally get what they want. People in the entirety of Europe have been consistently overwhelmingly against Austerity Policy since 2008 and that's all we've gotten, regardless of party in government or country in question, and when one country (Greece) decided to ignore austerity, it was literally threatened with a default by the European Central Bank and wasn't allowed to do so. Plenty of parties and free vote in Europe, it all means nothing at the end of the day. If you're USian instead, you're probably aware that the overwhelming majority of USians want universal healthcare for decades and that's systematically ignored by either party in government. What's democracy then?
Again: why would an antidemocratic dictatorship of an owning class create free universal healthcare, free education to the highest degree, guaranteed housing and work, public services, thoughtful urban planning and walkable neighborhoods, quality public transit for the period, subsidies of basic foodstuffs, sports centres aplenty, paid holidays for everyone, high workplace safety, etc? Maybe, possibly, because it was more democratic than you've made out to think? Again, I've given you plenty of sources mate, and you're just ignoring 90% of the comments I'm writing. Are you even a leftist at all? I wouldn't have this patience with a rightoid
Do you have the real numbers of the election results somewhere?
If you're unwilling to as much as listen, be honest to me and to yourself and stop wasting our time
You're being purposefully obtuse. Did Bush obey the popular will when he invaded Iraq?
The only and best measure of democracy is the existence of multiple parties?
I'm trying to have an actual conversation with you, dont be a dick
Democracy isn’t when there’s three parties, it’s when people generally get what they want
No, its when state is ruled by the people.
People in the entirety of Europe have been consistently overwhelmingly against Austerity Policy since 2008
As somebody living in Europe, no they haven't.
and when one country (Greece) decided to ignore austerity, it was literally threatened with a default by the European Central Bank and wasn’t allowed to do so.
A default is when you fail to make a payment on your obligations. Saying Greece was threatened by a default is like saying that you were threatened with cancer. Greece wasn't being economical with their resources, which led to them to them being on the verge of ruin. If they had managed their resources sustainably (that's sustainable in the economic sense, not in the environmental sense), nobody would have complained.
the overwhelming majority of USians want universal healthcare
It's really easy to find people who don't want it. Too easy for the support to be overwhelming.
why would an antidemocratic dictatorship of an owning class create free universal healthcare, free education to the highest degree, guaranteed housing and work, public services, thoughtful urban planning and walkable neighborhoods, quality public transit for the period, subsidies of basic foodstuffs, sports centres aplenty, paid holidays for everyone, high workplace safety, etc?
Because they wanted to? And then along came Gorbachev, decided that they didn't want to give the people those things anymore, and now they don't have them anymore.
Dictatorships aren't bad because dictators are cruel and incompetent, they're bad because there's no defense against a cruel and incompetent dictator.
And let me restate my earlier question: Do you have the real numbers somewhere?
Ok I thought I was talking to someone with basic political literacy. Yes, the overwhelming majority of EU citizens were/are against rise of retirement age and against defunding of public healthcare and education.
Greece was threatened with a default because EU states with Euro as their currency gave up their monetary sovereignty to the European Central Bank. England, the US or Japan have their own currencies so the state cannot default by definition, because the state can literally create an unlimited amount of the money it borrows through debt. Greece had a DEMOCRATIC REFERENDUM to revise its sovereign debt and the idea won by a long shot, and then the country was not allowed to exercise its democratic will under threat of cutting Euro supply by the ECB, i.e. default.
Every poll in the USA comes to some result close to 70% of USians supporting the idea of implementing universal healthcare because essentially every Democrat wants this and many Republicans want it too. It's not done because the US isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
I'm actually done talking with you. You pretend to be a leftist but you have literally 0 support to offer to the working class, you have the narrowest understanding of politics as defined by whatever western outlets you consume, and you're a smug debatelord who doesn't care to inform themselves in the slightest, you haven't picked up a single book about politics in your entire life and it shows. You constantly replicate lies and don't care to admit it, you constantly miss information and you don't care to admit it, and you think you're the smartest person in the universe. Go waste someone else's time.
We're talking about the USSR, not Greece, not the USA. Neither of the latter two are communist, nor did they claim to be so. Stop deflecting.
Do you have the real numbers somewhere?
You fucking loser
Again, documentation of regular functioning democratic processes within the USSR, please.
You're losing and you know it
Go fuck yourself, you worm
So, you don't have any evidence?
You've already shown that you just ignore any evidence, you petulant sack of shit.
You're losing and you know it
Damn, they go out of their way to write an in depth post with plenty of sources, and you act like a petulant little sack of shit.
And do you have the real numbers somewhere?
You're losing and you know it
You got nothing better to do?
Rubbing your failure in your face is an excellent use of my time, low cost high reward
You're boring.
Right back at you dipshit
Eat my shit and hair you little worm
No evidence?
You've already shown that you just ignore any evidence, you petulant sack of shit.
They failed to provide any for the issue at hand. Do you have the numbers?
You're losing and you know it
Eat shit
So you don't have any numbers that could show that the elections in the USSR weren't a complete farce?
Why would anyone bother treating you in good faith, worm?
So, you don't have the numbers?
You're losing and you know it
How did you become such a vile little toad?
Why don't you have the numbers. The numbers?
You're losing and you know it
Why don't you have any integrity, toad?
No numbers 😭?
Disgusting little worm
Numbers, we still need numbers over here.
Have you eaten shit yet, worm?
Have you gotten the numbers yet, reactionary?
Why would anyone bother trying to talk in good faith with your petulant ass?
Why can't you get the numbers, liberal?
Eat shit
Get the numbers, lib.
Eat shit
Please get the numbers, my dear little boxbrain, I know you can do it! 💓
Eat shit
My dear ♥ little 📦 boxbrain, please 🙏 get the numbers 🙏.
Eat shit
My dear ♥ little 📦 boxbrain, please 🙏 get the numbers 🙏.
Eat shit
My dear ♥ little 📦 boxbrain, please 🙏 get the numbers 🙏.
Eat shit
Riddle me this, my dear little boxbrain. If the Soviet Union was so great, why weren't people allowed to leave?
Eat shit
You're losing and you know it
After hardliners in Moscow made the New Union Treaty (that people voted for) fail, Ukraine voted to be independent.
No comment on the millions of Ukrainian deaths and lives ruined in the transition away from communism?
Well no I was commenting on that specific part. It's an interesting what if to consider if hardline communists hadn't prevented the New Union Treaty, if we might still have that new union and what their ideology would be.
I don't give a shit, if you care so much about Ukraine pick up a gun and go fight
I suppose you don't care about Gaza either, do you?
I do actually
So, why are you indifferent to Russia committing genocide, but not to Israel?
Russia isn't committing genocide, fucking duh
So, your standard is "Imperialism is fine, as long as you're not committing genocide"? Also, Russia not committing genocide is highly questionable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_of_Ukrainians_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War)
The current regime in Ukraine is the result of a coup staged by the US, it's our imperialism at work as usual. Yes Russia sucks ass, the US is still the bigger problem globally and a loss for the US proxy state is a preferable outcome. There's nothing questionable about whether it's a genocide or not, the only people claiming it is are feds pushing for more gun money and incurable fucking morons.
The current regime in Ukraine is the result of a coup staged by the US
No, it's not.
There’s nothing questionable about whether it’s a genocide or not
Let's examine Russian war crimes, shall we:
- Abducting 121,000 thousand children
- Arbitrary detention and forced disappearance
- Attacks on Civilians
- Attacks on Hospitals and Medical facilities
- Destruction of energy infrastructure
- Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
- Torture of Civilians
- Use of Human shields
- Sexual Violence
- Looting
- Forced Conscription
- Mistreatment of POWs
Yeah, so I'm basically just going through the sections of the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_war_(2022%E2%80%93present)
Yes it is, anything's possible when you make shit up, Wikipedia is not a source, try harder patriot
Here is the UN: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/09/1127691
War crimes have occured =/= these specific claims are true
I'm noticing a conspicuous absence in the article you linked of any mention of the word genocide, and absolutely nothing about any number of kidnapped children much less a fucking hundred thousand of them
Not sure why I even bather, but regarding the kidnapping of children: here is the case presented by the ICJ: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and
Not sure why I am trying as you seem so adamant in deluding yourself.
Another source that provides fuck all for evidence and doesn't bother to mention even a broad range of how many children have allegedly been taken, yeah you are delusional if you think this in any way substantiates the extravagant claims made here
Idk what part of "wikipedia is not a source" you're having trouble understanding
Goddamn you're dumb
Get new material loser
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact included a secret protocol to establish spheres of influence across Europe. If we exclude pacts with only Axis signatories, then what's left are mostly non-aggression pact. Actual non-aggression pacts, not an let's wage an unprovoked war of conquest on Poland pact.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Davidlowrendezvous.png
Lol making excuses for when your side teams up with Hitler for fun & profit, making up bullshit "secrets" about the soviets when they do it as a last resort for self-preservation
A non agression pact is not teaming up. Here's an example of what teaming up looks like:
And god damn, the USSR completely fucked up in Finland. Like, why the hell invade Finland in the first place?
Edit: Upon rereading the comment, I found that I had mixed up Sweden and Finland. In my defense, they're right next to each other.
Lol excuses for me, condemnations for thee
Why the fuck did Stalin think invading Finland was a good idea?
Because they were collaborating with the fucking nazis maybe? Idk seems like as good a reason as any
The reason to invade Finland wasn't sue to Nazi collaborationism, Finland still wasn't allied with the Nazis. The reason was the need for the USSR to put additional territory between themselves and the Nazis due to the geography of the region, i.e. the Great European Plain, a vast flatland without natural defenses that is very hard to protect from Nazi blitzkrieg. USSR attempted negotiations with Finland to gain terrains to have control over lands further from Moscow, Leningrad and the oil fields at the south of Russia, and only when those negotiations failed did the Soviets invade. This isn't just explicitly what the Soviets were saying at the time of negotiations, it was openly said so by all western leaders at the time of the Molotov Ribbentrop truce:
“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)
“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.
"One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course” Neville Chamberlain House of Commons Statement
Wasn't openly allied with the nazis yet, was clearly inclined to due so long before it was official, was clearly still a motive for the soviets, fucking duh
My point is you don't need to assume inclination to allying with the Nazis. I personally believe it too, but the motives for the invasion were ultimately different, as explained by the sources I've given you.
You have no point, you provided no sources, they didn't need to assume anything because they knew it for a fact
I provided three sourced quotes from contemporary western sources corroborating that the given reason for invading Finland was to put extra Soviet-controlled territory between the USSR and Nazi Germany.
Additional source, from Wikipedia's article of the Winter War:
"In April 1938, NKVD agent Boris Yartsev contacted Finnish Foreign Minister Rudolf Holsti and Finnish Prime Minister Aimo Cajander, stating that the Soviets did not trust Germany and that war was considered possible between the two countries. The Red Army would not wait passively behind the border but would rather "advance to meet the enemy". Finnish representatives assured Yartsev that Finland was committed to a policy of neutrality and that the country would resist any armed incursion. Yartsev suggested that Finland cede or lease some islands in the Gulf of Finland along the seaward approaches to Leningrad, but Finland refused"
Your and Soviet gut feelings about Finns collabbing with Nazis, however right they ended up being afterwards, weren't the official reason to invade Finland's south, the reason was simply putting extra land on the way, as explicitly said by Soviet officials during negotiations to try and peacefully get that land, and as proven by the fact that the Soviets stopped the war when they got these territories.
Claiming that a person said something is not even close to the same thing as providing a source that proves they said it, and a handful of quotes from leaders of countries that are not the soviet union would prove absolutely nothing about the motives of the leaders of the soviet union even if they weren't entirely unsubstantiated. You're bad at this.
They weren't doing that when Stalin invaded them. Stalin squandered any advantage he could have possibly gotten by collaborating with the Nazis through invading Finland. Which ironically, pushed the Fins to actually ally with the Nazis.
And why the hell did Stalin invade Poland? The guy sounds less and less competent the more you learn about him, doesn't he?
Historically illiterate and/or full of shit, try harder
Well, I suppose I shouldn't waste my time talking to a reactionary shitlib.
Lol I'm a communist, you don't know what words mean
No, you're not. You support the group that betrayed the Russian revolution. Making you a reactionary.
Anything's possible when you make shit up
I'm guessing you have a gun in hand alredy?
Interesting guess, definitely not something a person with a working brain would discuss in detail through unsecure channels
Lmao that's a no
Moron or fed, embarassing either way
I'm sorry but I can't discuss that over unsecured channels
Of course not, might blow your cover lol
Yes exactly, I'm a secret spy trying to out keyboard warriors
Not a very good one
Well I got one today, I hit my quota for the day
You're gonna get laid off
Laid for sure ayooo
Signs point to no
I can't discuss any signs or sign related questions at this hour
Sounds like a personal problem
*personnel
Insert rimshot
Ayy
Lmao this place is overrun with "Leftists" -- what are you even talking about?
You spelled "tankies" wrong
Okay tankie.
Anyone you disagree with is a Tankie.
It's overrun with blue MAGA libs that attack anyone who refuses to fall in line with the Dem party. Just look at many of the comments on posts in leftymemes that are anti-drmocrat or anti-voting. Tons of these morons crawling out of the woodwork to defend them and spout their "lesser evil" BS.
You spelled "tankies" wrong.
Chickenshit response
Garbage take.
Cry about it liberal
Okay tankie
Brb, re-painting the lines on the stroad near my house to add a bike lane.
Well, after I rent a pavement grinder to fix the damn sidewalks.
Install a speed bump for additional safety https://www.clevescene.com/news/urbanist-guerillas-fed-up-neighbors-install-speed-bump-on-street-where-five-year-old-was-struck-and-killed-38879832
Reminder that "you can't make the system better by voting" applies even when you win the actual votes. Chile found out when democratically-elected socialist leader Salvador Allende was murdered in cold blood by a fascist CIA-backed coup and replaced by a fascist dictator, and Spain (my homeland) found out when we democratically elected a leftist coalition during the Spanish Second Republic, only to have a failed coup which turned into a civil war in which Fascists backed by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy fought against the legitimate democratically elected government (supported only by the USSR while the USA, England and France looked the other way during Nazi bombings such as that of Gernika), ultimately with Fascists winning the war and creating a 40-year fascist dictatorship of which we still sadly live the consequences.
You can all talk politics, but Arson Rabbit is my new hero.
Based on the voter turnout in the last US Federal election, I would say you COULD have made the system better (or at least not immeasurably worse) by voting.
Folks just chose not to.
It wouldn't have made the system better. It would have delayed people from making the system worse.
The last chance to make it better was the 2020 primary. That definitely could have been a fulcrum if Democratic voters weren't such idiots.
The primary on which the Democratic party deliberately, repeatedly, and flagrantly puts its whole arm on the scale? That primary?
I stg they could roll out Hitler and Mega Hitler and y'all would get pissy at non voters like they're the idiots.
I can be pissed at the Democratic establishment for manipulating voters and at voters for allowing themselves to be manipulated at the same time. I'm just talented like that.
That's what y'all always say but only bring it out after you've thrown a tantrum at non voters like the Democratic party is owed votes. You can't be mad at democrats for rigging shit and at the voters for recognizing it, that's just some cop out y'all been trained to give.
Y'all ain't slick.
Who the fuck do you think I am? You're presuming an awful lot, and nowhere close to the mark. Also, if you read what I just said, I'm not pissed at voters for recognizing the lies, I'm pissed at them for falling for the lies. Fuck off until you learn some reading comprehension skills.
Which means more time to make it better. I would rather have things fall apart in pieces instead of collapsing as a whole
So you're telling me you'd rather your entire house fall to dust, than for parts of your house to fall apart over time so you have time to build it up better? That's a really weird take.
You're ignoring the part where building it up better cannot be and never has been accomplished by voting
People said this in 2020 as well, that we should vote for Biden and organize, and then people just didn't organize.
The problem with the slow collapse is that it frustrates people, and pushes them to vote for the alternative.
I knew there was a reason I never got permanently identifiable tattoos like everyone else in my age group and kept my hair and beard long so I can change my appearance with a pair of scissors and a razor in just a few minutes.
said everyone sane, but not knowing how
I've read the declassified sabotage guides but people still have things to lose before they have nothing to lose.
Their hrududus are scary. We must be scarier!
I GET THIS
Like. Why do people trust judges in America? I grew up where our local judges were financed by the mob with bullshit like owning the juvenile detention centers. Where kids were sent to keep it profitable for the owners. Who some were the very judges throwing kids away for nothing.
Judges are not going to save us. At this point replace them with Ai judges. I’m sure they’ll do a better job.
Honestly, the fact that ICR just does what it wants on American streets is pretty weird to me. How have people just not chased them off yet? So weird.
Yes this is a message I’m fully behind
The force of gravity has been already shown to take rights for us, when applied to the necks of the oligarchy.
Ukraine 2013-2014 - literally saved the country from being dismantled and absorbed by russia.
We still have midterms, if people go e then reason we will not have it. Be careful because I put they will put agitators inside to push their narrative.
Better check what those "minor updates" did to the voting machines.
You definitely can achieve some things with voting.
This is definitely the idea of someone that voted for a third party in a "first past the post" system.
For those that are unaware. In a first past the post system, the winner gets 100% of the power. This means that if you don't vote, or vote for a third party that doesn't win, you are mathematically voting for the eventual winner
Congratulations for voting Trump in.
Rabbits with their nonviolent eating of grass, and running away... Not exactly an imposing threat.
Lefties already llive like rabbits.
I think you might have Watership Down Syndrome.
Serious question: has violence ever made the country better? Could you please list a few historical examples?
Unironically yes. The American civil war was fought over whether slavery should be permitted. Slavery is objectively bad, thus fighting to get rid of it made the country better.
Not to mention the revolutionary war, civil rights movement, etc. It doesn't take much US history knowledge to know this.
Hey, I am white as duck, but my shape is more of a boomerang...
Are you being obtuse or are you really just that fucking stupid?
Yeah, now that i think about it, i can name a few examples too, including the violent removal of colonial administrations around the world. I don't know why i didn't think of that when i wrote my above comment.
You voted for a genocider. I love people like you IRL. They can afford to be very nice by voting to externalize their country's violence. You were ready to throw foreigners under the bus, you didn't care your party of choice were supporting bombing of civilians, well, as an European, I'll campaign not to allow refugees from the US. Enjoy your own medicine, scum
Tanky cunts fuck off.
stonewall, american civil war, anytime someone throws a brick at a cop car
I am impressed by the pacifist responses on Lemmy. I assume country means the USA.
Labor strikes have led to violence. Among the consolations were the eight hour work day for some and an end to some child labor.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act sparked Bleeding Kansas which contributed to the Civil War. The result of the violence was a change in labor relations for slaves. Owners had to get more creative at creating an underclass.
The battle of Blair mountain, John Brown, hell, the Black Panthers. Peace is good, but without the threat of violence it falls easily.
Historically illiterate and cowardly