Especially not the dissolution. They had a referendum to attempt to legitimize the dissolution, which failed in a landslide, and then they ignored it and did it anyway.
I don't mean it to be a perfect analogy, I just found it funny that these are two idiots enacting big sweeping changes in political or economic organization that are likely to end up killing the host. Gorbachev's USSR died at the hands of the US and its puppets while in the US capital seems to be cannibalizing itself.
pointed out that if everyone picks the lesser of two evils then things are going to get less evil
That's just absolutely not how it works even if you take it at face value. Both evils can be greater than the one rn, that has absolutely no bearing on which one is "lesser" among them.
You're looking at it the wrong way. The fall of capitalism is the retirement plan, the people losing the most money rn were never gonna let you if things kept going the same way.
Ask seniors currently being squeezed for all they're worth while being abused by staff in cramped and unsanitary facilities how they're loving their retirement fund. That was the best case scenario.
I disagree, it's a very good thing. USians have had ample time to reckon with their fascist government, but since the price was being paid by minorities and people abroad, not enough of y'all listened or cared. The rot took hold, the violence was turned inward like Malcolm X warned and when the US dies the world will immediately be better for it.
Of course, provided they don't do the ghoulish shit only they and Israel would, nuking us all out of spite.
It very demonstrably is. Credit card debt is at record highs, home ownership is down, rents are a bigger proportion of salary than they've been in like a century, one in every five children in the US face food insecurity, incarceration is the highest in the world by far both in volume and per capita, people are going bankrupt with medical debt at record rates.
Just because you don't want to face up to it doesn't mean it's not happening.
The non-aggression pact that was signed well after Nazi germany had signed pacts with Britain and France? The one that was signed after Stalin's pleas for an alliance against Hitler's Germany fell on deaf ears because Western powers were still dreaming that Germany would attack the USSR first and succeed where they'd failed immediately after the 1917 revolution? That one?
Historically illiterate westerners read a single fucking line and memorize it and think that's an earth-shattering gotcha like we haven't seen your cookie cutter shit a hundred times. Serious socialists who actually read history can contextualize history, and I'll repeat it: fuck anyone who diminishes the sacrifices of the Soviet Union against the Nazi tide, it's barely notch above outright holocaust denial.
all anti-fascist literature was removed from libraries along with general line of censorship to praise nazis after the pact.
Back up your claims with a serious source. I'm sure such a comically extraordinary claim will have hard evidence behind it and not just a vibe.
All the love for the USSR from them is just nostalgia for the times when they were carefree kids
Yeah bro only enlightened westerners are smart enough to recognize why they preferred a certain economic and political system, dumb easterners just want ice cream. They definitely didn't have a better political education than you. Hell, they probably didn't even read Animal Farm!
The world owes Stalin and the people of the USSR a debt that can never be repaid for being the only country to try to stop Nazi Germany before the war and the country which bore the brunt of the casualties and hardship.
Any "socialist" who shit talks them is suspicious as fuck in my book, chauvinist at the very best and probably a snitch.
Khrushchev was an opportunist piece of shit and the world would have been better if he had been kicked out of the party.
Tens of millions? I suppose it was the USSR's fault that the Nazis declared war and committed genocide? Or are you crying for the Nazis? Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Anyone who didn't think genocide was an entirely negotiable part of the platform/a wedge issue nuisance, basically. There were some Jill Stein voters there, some PSL voters, some non voters who are otherwise politically active, certainly a bigger percentage than Dems who think politics is a thing you do every two years for a few hours.
I've yet to see democrat leadership organizing for a general strike or advocating for civil disobedience, unlike those others mentioned.
Nah, they deserve worse. The Nazis didn't get punished, they got jobs. A few figureheads got the chopping block but most of the actual torturers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers got away scot-free west of the Berlin wall. The US is already doing what they did to the Nazis, shower them with money, find them jobs they need such monsters for.
Democrats are the ones criticizing the ones actually trying to put out the fire but doing jack shit about it.
What's more, they're the ones who doused the house with gas not a half a year ago, and whenever they're not delighting in the terror going "oh I bet you must love it, you didn't vote for the lady with the matches and now you got the guy with the flamethrower" they're passing his budgets, they're complying with Musk's unelected goons, they're getting on with his Gaza agenda and largely silent about the protestors getting kidnapped.
Asking for donations isn't resisting, it's ransom.
Grapho @ Grapho @lemmy.ml Posts 20Comments 888Joined 9 mo. ago
Especially not the dissolution. They had a referendum to attempt to legitimize the dissolution, which failed in a landslide, and then they ignored it and did it anyway.