Socialism as outlined in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto is a little sketchier because it makes a lot of unrealistic assumptions about human nature and is just generally super hard to implement without creating a power vacuum.
Socialism as in the USSR’s Socialism is a century old practice of the cruellest and most war hungry culture imagineable, having taken advantage of the afforementioned power vacuum to starve and torture millions at home, ally with the Nazis in WWII and then change sides halfway through, tear down democracies around the globe, and push us all the closest we have ever been to thermonuclear annihilation. A threat so great that even 30 years into its grave is still a great stone over our heads, having crafted a world power balance that will threaten our destruction for generations to come.
My dad was Finnish, and I think it helps to remember, Finns were fighting Russians before and during the time Russia called itself Communist and Socialist. The western side of that divide, the Nordic countries, practiced a very different version of “socialism”, with democracy, and they seem to be reaping a lot of benefits.
Socialism as outlined in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto is a little sketchier because it makes a lot of unrealistic assumptions about human nature and is just generally super hard to implement without creating a power vacuum.
Marx’s general proposals for the implementation of a socialist government:
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries: gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.
Which of those do you think is hard to implement or makes unrealistic assumptions about human nature?
A) An Authoritarian state who controls all property with no method to implement such state.
… what?
Abolition of private land ownership in favor of state land ownership is not inherently ‘authoritarian’, nor is it particularly impossible to implement.
B) An Anarchy where, since nobody owns anything, the influential will go wherever they want and take whatever they want.
You… you do realize that public lands does not mean “First come first serve”, right?
Man, this is basic pre-modern society shit. Read up on medieval village commons. Shit, read up on public lands today.
Let me put it this way: in many places around the world the people are allowed to challenge the state’s claim to properties in courts with varying success. Your step one would take that away, so it is leaning in the direction of authoritarian.
But I’m pretty sure Marx was more interested in Option B, I don’t think he was interested in using politics to build a strong democracy but rather wanted to topple any current system and hope a firect democracy pops up over night.
“It would perhaps be as well if things were to remain quiet for a few years yet, so that all this 1848 democracy has time to rot away.”
“…it happens that society is saved as often as the circle of its ruling class is narrowed, as often as a more exclusive interest asserts itself over the general. Every demand for the most simple bourgeois financial reform, for the most ordinary liberalism, for the most commonplace republicanism, for the flattest democracy is forthwith punished as an assault upon society and is branded as Socialism.”
“…the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy.”
These are three separate Karl Marx quotes and they’re extremely vague, but he has been somewhat consistent that any form of government that is not direct democracy must be “overthrown” or “fought” or “toppled”.
Let me put it this way: in many places around the world the people are allowed to challenge the state’s claim to properties in courts with varying success. Your step one would take that away, so it is leaning in the direction of authoritarian.
Bruh, in state societies without widespread private land ownership there remains a distinction between state and public lands, and the state can be challenged with regards to ownership or usage rights in courts.
But I’m pretty sure Marx was more interested in Option B, I don’t think he was interested in using politics to build a strong democracy but rather wanted to topple any current system and hope a firect democracy pops up over night.
Reformism was not his first choice, but he mused at several points that bourgeois democracies with strong workers’ movements, like the USA and the UK at his time (big RIP to our labor movements), could potentially reform without mass revolution.
“It would perhaps be as well if things were to remain quiet for a few years yet, so that all this 1848 democracy has time to rot away.”
I’m unfamiliar with that quote or its provenance, but considering that the entire point of the disappointments of 1848 was that the revolutions, both liberal and socialist factions failed, and the ‘concessions’ offered in response by the established authoritarian regimes were nothing more than window dressing (with executions for flavor), thinking that the sheen of that farce needed to fade before further action could be taken is not unreasonable.
“…it happens that society is saved as often as the circle of its ruling class is narrowed, as often as a more exclusive interest asserts itself over the general. Every demand for the most simple bourgeois financial reform, for the most ordinary liberalism, for the most commonplace republicanism, for the flattest democracy is forthwith punished as an assault upon society and is branded as Socialism.”
How is that in any way in opposition to democracy or even reform?
“…the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy.”
I repeat the second statement.
These are three separate Karl Marx posts and they’re extremely vague, but he has been somewhat consistent that any form of government that is not direct democracy must be “overthrown” or “fought” or “toppled”.
In the long term, sure. If your goal is direct democracy without a state (“Communism”), then the goal is to eventually get there. But Marx was always very clear that intermediate steps were not fucking nothing, and in many cases were necessary.
You may need to jump over the gap on a broken bridge, but better a broken bridge to jump over than the whole goddamn river.
It actually wasn’t. The comment I responded to was posing socialism as being at the root of these issues. It’s hardly the cause of any of these, much like how capitalism itself also isn’t the cause of toppling foreign democracies or threatening thermonuclear annihilation, which is what I was contrasting.
Not Socialism, I specifically said tbe USSR in this example.
I didn’t call it the root, I don’t think Joseph Stalin invented being a King, I just think he has forever stained the word Socialism.
When people talk about an apple that is rotten because somebody specifically asked about it, talking about all the rotten oranges and pears in the world is top of the line whataboutism.
You mean to say you weren’t actually talking about socialism, just like I wasn’t actually talking about capitalism, but instead the US hegemony in particular? 😝
Socialism as outlined in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto is a little sketchier because it makes a lot of unrealistic assumptions about human nature and is just generally super hard to implement without creating a power vacuum.
And is still pretty vague. There was a lot of colouring in for the Bolsheviks to do.
Socialism as in the USSR’s Socialism is a century old practice of the cruellest and most war hungry culture imagineable, having taken advantage of the afforementioned power vacuum to starve and torture millions at home, ally with the Nazis in WWII and then change sides halfway through, tear down democracies around the globe, and push us all the closest we have ever been to thermonuclear annihilation. A threat so great that even 30 years into its grave is still a great stone over our heads, having crafted a world power balance that will threaten our destruction for generations to come.
I’m glad it fell (plz don’t ban), but there’s hella artistic licence there.
The power vacuum came from the Tsar. They were always enemies of the Nazis, although they did temporarily agree not to fight them, and then afterwards they basically won the war themselves. The US went first with the nukes. I don’t even know what you mean about the current power balance - Russia is laughably weak, China is behind where it would have been if it took the Japan path. And, the thing about their cruel culture just sounds like bigotry.
The Bolsheviks literally couped the democratically elected and socialist post-Tsar government of Russia, kickstarting several years of civil war.
It was itself months old. Just like in France a century and a bit earlier, revolutions have a way of getting overthrown. And the one that stuck was itself autocratic.
If the Tsars had made actual concessions to liberalism earlier, maybe history would have developed differently. But, as it is, they waited until the late 19th century to abolish actual tied-to-the-land serfdom, were similarly reluctant to stop being autocratic feudal dicks in other ways, and set up the Duma right as revolutionaries of various stripes were trying to knock in their door. With the unpopularity of WWI and the necessity of having a lot of angry soldiers running around during it, instability became fait accompli.
Funny, then, that they invaded Poland and the Baltics in tandem with the Nazis and spent several years supplying the Nazi war machine.
The Nazis saw communism as right up their with the Jews as their main nemesis, and invented the term Judaeo-Bolshevik to describe how they’re actually the same. Yes, they did agree to not fight each other and split up some weaker nations (and trade? I’m not sure what you mean by supplying), but calling that an alliance seems like a stretch. I can’t believe both sides weren’t gauging when to break it off and attack the other from the start. Stalin spent that time shifting his defense production base to the Urals in preparation, even.
Compare Britain and France, or Italy and the Nazis, who were definitely allies.
Fucking what.
Even Stalin regarded the Soviet position as unwinnable without the Western Allies.
Yes, it would have been a very different war if the Nazis weren’t already fighting. But, as it was, they were in a stalemate circa 1941 when they started Barbarossa, and the Soviets ended up taking the lion’s share of casualties tipping the balance hard against them. Being a history student, I’m sure you as well have seen actual historians explain that human wave tactics weren’t a thing - Soviets died in spades because they were fighting hard against an enemy that saw them as subhuman.
In a few words “they basically won it themselves” is the best I could do. Since there were many topics at play I didn’t want to start pulling out statistics and narrative to explain the nuances behind that, or talk about counterfactuals relating to it being a 1-on-1 fight.
It was itself months old. Just like in France a century and a bit earlier, revolutions have a way of getting overthrown. And the one that stuck was itself autocratic.
“It’s just the nature of revolutions” rings a little hollow when two revolutions had occurred without kicking off a civil war until the Bolsheviks dissolved the democratically elected assembly. Feels rather like creating a power vacuum.
Yes, they did agree to not fight each other and split up some weaker nations (and trade? I’m not sure what you mean by supplying), but calling that an alliance seems like a stretch.
What do you call it when two countries agree to cooperate on military matters, including offensive military actions, up to an including performing a joint invasion of a country with the intention of annexing and genociding it?
Yes, it would have been a very different war if the Nazis weren’t already fighting.
No, as in, “Stalin believed that without American Lend-Lease alone, the Soviet Union could not have survived the war, even with the Western Allies being in the fight”
But, as it was, they were in a stalemate circa 1941 when they started Barbarossa, and the Soviets ended up taking the lion’s share of casualties tipping the balance hard against them. Being a history student, I’m sure you as well have seen actual historians explain that human wave tactics weren’t a thing - Soviets died in spades because they were fighting hard against an enemy that saw them as subhuman.
The Soviets inflicted approximately 50% more casualties on the Nazis (though a roughly equivalent number of total losses due to Nazis being more willing to surrender to Western forces), but suffered roughly ten times the number of casualties as Western forces, or five times if PoW deaths are excluded.
It doesn’t have to be human wave tactics to be a staggering display of incompetence that nearly lost them the war.
“It’s just the nature of revolutions” rings a little hollow when two revolutions had occurred without kicking off a civil war until the Bolsheviks dissolved the democratically elected assembly. Feels rather like creating a power vacuum.
I don’t think you can separate it like that given just a few months passing in between. Once they had power, they were pretty single-minded about reinforcing it and leaving nothing to chance.
Sure, the provisional government was democratic, to the extent it could be in such a short time. I never said the Bolsheviks were cool, so that’s not really relevant.
What do you call it when two countries agree to cooperate on military matters, including offensive military actions, up to an including performing a joint invasion of a country with the intention of annexing and genociding it?
I mean, didn’t Spain and Portugal do something similar with South America? If they were actually fighting together you’d have a point, but what happened is that they drew a line on a map through Poland, independently expanded to it, and then didn’t cross it for a little while.
No, as in, “Stalin believed that without American Lend-Lease alone, the Soviet Union could not have survived the war, even with the Western Allies being in the fight”
Oh, you meant the US. Sure, Soviet blood, American steel.
I don’t think you can separate it like that given just a few months passing in between. Once they had power, they were pretty single-minded about reinforcing it and leaving nothing to chance.
“They tried to make their own reign stable” isn’t really an argument against them creating a power vacuum, no more than the Tsarist obsession with autocracy as a means of stability counts against the Tsar’s incompetence leading to a power vacuum.
Almost a year passed, in which Russia remained cohesive enough to maintain participation in WW1 and have radical, nationwide elections.
I mean, didn’t Spain and Portugal do something similar with South America?
Fighting very separate polities.
If they were actually fighting together you’d have a point, but what happened is that they drew a line on a map through Poland, independently expanded to it, and then didn’t cross it for a little while.
‘Independently expanded to it’ is a funny way of saying “Invading within two weeks of each other, causing the sudden dissolution of the Polish war plan, then meeting in the middle and having a joint victory parade”.
Oh, you meant the US. Sure, Soviet blood, American steel.
And without Britain staying in the fight, the US wouldn’t have gotten involved in Europe at all. And without Britain staying in the fight, a massive amount of air power would have been available for Operation Barbarossa.
Do you really think the provisional government would have just lasted if Lenin had stayed home, so to speak? From where I’m standing it seems someone else from some faction somewhere would have started their own coup.
Yes, WWII was a joint effort. I probably should have said “the most decisive contribution”. I’m sorry, my bad.
Do you really think the provisional government would have just lasted if Lenin had stayed home, so to speak? From where I’m standing it seems someone else from some faction somewhere would have started their own coup.
The previous coup attempt against the provisional government failed because there was no mass appetite in the population for a coup from the right, and the Bolshevik coup only succeeded at the cost of - again - sparking a civil war. The Mensheviks and SRs were both onboard with the provisional government; neither of them were likely to attempt a coup. Most of the right-wing elements had been stripped of power, and the military refused to follow a right-wing putsch attempt. If Lenin had stayed home, so to speak… what faction does that leave to attempt a coup?
It hardly seems ridiculous to think that the legislature that everything since the overthrow of the Tsar had been working towards - complete with arguments and concessions with competing factions - finally assembling after the long-awaited elections might have forged something lasting had the Bolsheviks not closed it down by military force, yes.
Gonna go bomb a wedding, maybe torture some Muslims at Gitmo? You sick fucks can’t go a year without invading a country or brutally toppling a government. What’s the longest you ever not been in a war/conflict/or any other word you created to downplay your crimes?
Yes, you have several EmAiLs to complain about instead of actually addressing anything. I doubt anyone here thinks the US is perfect, but that’s not the question.
“Socialism by its barest definition is great.” That’s what I thought too until I learned about the USSR’s Socialism and how it led to starvation, torture, war, and nearly caused a nuclear apocalypse. It’s easy to romanticize socialism in theory, but we must remember the horrors it has caused in practice.
Socialism by its barest definition is great.
Socialism as outlined in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto is a little sketchier because it makes a lot of unrealistic assumptions about human nature and is just generally super hard to implement without creating a power vacuum.
Socialism as in the USSR’s Socialism is a century old practice of the cruellest and most war hungry culture imagineable, having taken advantage of the afforementioned power vacuum to starve and torture millions at home, ally with the Nazis in WWII and then change sides halfway through, tear down democracies around the globe, and push us all the closest we have ever been to thermonuclear annihilation. A threat so great that even 30 years into its grave is still a great stone over our heads, having crafted a world power balance that will threaten our destruction for generations to come.
But Socialism by its barest definition is great.
My dad was Finnish, and I think it helps to remember, Finns were fighting Russians before and during the time Russia called itself Communist and Socialist. The western side of that divide, the Nordic countries, practiced a very different version of “socialism”, with democracy, and they seem to be reaping a lot of benefits.
Marx’s general proposals for the implementation of a socialist government:
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries: gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.
Which of those do you think is hard to implement or makes unrealistic assumptions about human nature?
So right around step 1 you’ve got either
A) An Authoritarian state who controls all property with no method to implement such state.
B) An Anarchy where, since nobody owns anything, the influential will go wherever they want and take whatever they want.
… what?
Abolition of private land ownership in favor of state land ownership is not inherently ‘authoritarian’, nor is it particularly impossible to implement.
You… you do realize that public lands does not mean “First come first serve”, right?
Man, this is basic pre-modern society shit. Read up on medieval village commons. Shit, read up on public lands today.
Let me put it this way: in many places around the world the people are allowed to challenge the state’s claim to properties in courts with varying success. Your step one would take that away, so it is leaning in the direction of authoritarian.
But I’m pretty sure Marx was more interested in Option B, I don’t think he was interested in using politics to build a strong democracy but rather wanted to topple any current system and hope a firect democracy pops up over night.
These are three separate Karl Marx quotes and they’re extremely vague, but he has been somewhat consistent that any form of government that is not direct democracy must be “overthrown” or “fought” or “toppled”.
Bruh, in state societies without widespread private land ownership there remains a distinction between state and public lands, and the state can be challenged with regards to ownership or usage rights in courts.
Reformism was not his first choice, but he mused at several points that bourgeois democracies with strong workers’ movements, like the USA and the UK at his time (big RIP to our labor movements), could potentially reform without mass revolution.
I’m unfamiliar with that quote or its provenance, but considering that the entire point of the disappointments of 1848 was that the revolutions, both liberal and socialist factions failed, and the ‘concessions’ offered in response by the established authoritarian regimes were nothing more than window dressing (with executions for flavor), thinking that the sheen of that farce needed to fade before further action could be taken is not unreasonable.
How is that in any way in opposition to democracy or even reform?
I repeat the second statement.
In the long term, sure. If your goal is direct democracy without a state (“Communism”), then the goal is to eventually get there. But Marx was always very clear that intermediate steps were not fucking nothing, and in many cases were necessary.
You may need to jump over the gap on a broken bridge, but better a broken bridge to jump over than the whole goddamn river.
Yeah, and capitalism has never lead to the toppling of foreign democracies or threatened thermonuclear annihilation
Ah, shit wait
Top of the line Whataboutism
It actually wasn’t. The comment I responded to was posing socialism as being at the root of these issues. It’s hardly the cause of any of these, much like how capitalism itself also isn’t the cause of toppling foreign democracies or threatening thermonuclear annihilation, which is what I was contrasting.
Not Socialism, I specifically said tbe USSR in this example.
I didn’t call it the root, I don’t think Joseph Stalin invented being a King, I just think he has forever stained the word Socialism.
When people talk about an apple that is rotten because somebody specifically asked about it, talking about all the rotten oranges and pears in the world is top of the line whataboutism.
You mean to say you weren’t actually talking about socialism, just like I wasn’t actually talking about capitalism, but instead the US hegemony in particular? 😝
I mean to say you’re talking about shit that nobody asked about and saying I made claims which I clearly didn’t.
And is still pretty vague. There was a lot of colouring in for the Bolsheviks to do.
I’m glad it fell (plz don’t ban), but there’s hella artistic licence there.
The power vacuum came from the Tsar. They were always enemies of the Nazis, although they did temporarily agree not to fight them, and then afterwards they basically won the war themselves. The US went first with the nukes. I don’t even know what you mean about the current power balance - Russia is laughably weak, China is behind where it would have been if it took the Japan path. And, the thing about their cruel culture just sounds like bigotry.
The Bolsheviks literally couped the democratically elected and socialist post-Tsar government of Russia, kickstarting several years of civil war.
Funny, then, that they invaded Poland and the Baltics in tandem with the Nazis and spent several years supplying the Nazi war machine.
Fucking what.
Even Stalin regarded the Soviet position as unwinnable without the Western Allies.
I didn’t expect to end up arguing with you, Pug.
It was itself months old. Just like in France a century and a bit earlier, revolutions have a way of getting overthrown. And the one that stuck was itself autocratic.
If the Tsars had made actual concessions to liberalism earlier, maybe history would have developed differently. But, as it is, they waited until the late 19th century to abolish actual tied-to-the-land serfdom, were similarly reluctant to stop being autocratic feudal dicks in other ways, and set up the Duma right as revolutionaries of various stripes were trying to knock in their door. With the unpopularity of WWI and the necessity of having a lot of angry soldiers running around during it, instability became fait accompli.
The Nazis saw communism as right up their with the Jews as their main nemesis, and invented the term Judaeo-Bolshevik to describe how they’re actually the same. Yes, they did agree to not fight each other and split up some weaker nations (and trade? I’m not sure what you mean by supplying), but calling that an alliance seems like a stretch. I can’t believe both sides weren’t gauging when to break it off and attack the other from the start. Stalin spent that time shifting his defense production base to the Urals in preparation, even.
Compare Britain and France, or Italy and the Nazis, who were definitely allies.
Yes, it would have been a very different war if the Nazis weren’t already fighting. But, as it was, they were in a stalemate circa 1941 when they started Barbarossa, and the Soviets ended up taking the lion’s share of casualties tipping the balance hard against them. Being a history student, I’m sure you as well have seen actual historians explain that human wave tactics weren’t a thing - Soviets died in spades because they were fighting hard against an enemy that saw them as subhuman.
In a few words “they basically won it themselves” is the best I could do. Since there were many topics at play I didn’t want to start pulling out statistics and narrative to explain the nuances behind that, or talk about counterfactuals relating to it being a 1-on-1 fight.
“It’s just the nature of revolutions” rings a little hollow when two revolutions had occurred without kicking off a civil war until the Bolsheviks dissolved the democratically elected assembly. Feels rather like creating a power vacuum.
What do you call it when two countries agree to cooperate on military matters, including offensive military actions, up to an including performing a joint invasion of a country with the intention of annexing and genociding it?
No, as in, “Stalin believed that without American Lend-Lease alone, the Soviet Union could not have survived the war, even with the Western Allies being in the fight”
The Soviets inflicted approximately 50% more casualties on the Nazis (though a roughly equivalent number of total losses due to Nazis being more willing to surrender to Western forces), but suffered roughly ten times the number of casualties as Western forces, or five times if PoW deaths are excluded.
It doesn’t have to be human wave tactics to be a staggering display of incompetence that nearly lost them the war.
I don’t think you can separate it like that given just a few months passing in between. Once they had power, they were pretty single-minded about reinforcing it and leaving nothing to chance.
Sure, the provisional government was democratic, to the extent it could be in such a short time. I never said the Bolsheviks were cool, so that’s not really relevant.
I mean, didn’t Spain and Portugal do something similar with South America? If they were actually fighting together you’d have a point, but what happened is that they drew a line on a map through Poland, independently expanded to it, and then didn’t cross it for a little while.
Oh, you meant the US. Sure, Soviet blood, American steel.
“They tried to make their own reign stable” isn’t really an argument against them creating a power vacuum, no more than the Tsarist obsession with autocracy as a means of stability counts against the Tsar’s incompetence leading to a power vacuum.
Almost a year passed, in which Russia remained cohesive enough to maintain participation in WW1 and have radical, nationwide elections.
Fighting very separate polities.
‘Independently expanded to it’ is a funny way of saying “Invading within two weeks of each other, causing the sudden dissolution of the Polish war plan, then meeting in the middle and having a joint victory parade”.
And without Britain staying in the fight, the US wouldn’t have gotten involved in Europe at all. And without Britain staying in the fight, a massive amount of air power would have been available for Operation Barbarossa.
Do you really think the provisional government would have just lasted if Lenin had stayed home, so to speak? From where I’m standing it seems someone else from some faction somewhere would have started their own coup.
Yes, WWII was a joint effort. I probably should have said “the most decisive contribution”. I’m sorry, my bad.
The previous coup attempt against the provisional government failed because there was no mass appetite in the population for a coup from the right, and the Bolshevik coup only succeeded at the cost of - again - sparking a civil war. The Mensheviks and SRs were both onboard with the provisional government; neither of them were likely to attempt a coup. Most of the right-wing elements had been stripped of power, and the military refused to follow a right-wing putsch attempt. If Lenin had stayed home, so to speak… what faction does that leave to attempt a coup?
It hardly seems ridiculous to think that the legislature that everything since the overthrow of the Tsar had been working towards - complete with arguments and concessions with competing factions - finally assembling after the long-awaited elections might have forged something lasting had the Bolsheviks not closed it down by military force, yes.
Removed by mod
America?
BuT hER eMaILs!
Gonna go bomb a wedding, maybe torture some Muslims at Gitmo? You sick fucks can’t go a year without invading a country or brutally toppling a government. What’s the longest you ever not been in a war/conflict/or any other word you created to downplay your crimes?
bUt TrUmP iS tHe OnLy PrObLeM wItH aMeRicA
Yes, you have several EmAiLs to complain about instead of actually addressing anything. I doubt anyone here thinks the US is perfect, but that’s not the question.
I did address something, I addressed that the US is everything that American thought about the Soviets.
The question had noting to do with perfect, the question was about unmistakable evil.
No, the question was about the Soviet Union. That’s why talking about the US is a cop-out.
“Socialism by its barest definition is great.” That’s what I thought too until I learned about the USSR’s Socialism and how it led to starvation, torture, war, and nearly caused a nuclear apocalypse. It’s easy to romanticize socialism in theory, but we must remember the horrors it has caused in practice.
Lmao thats just the short version of my comment