ashlynnn.bsky.social
🏳️⚧️
117 posts
84 followers
54 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
China, like the Soviet Union, claims to be on the path to communism, currently they claim they're in the primary stage of socialism. They do not claim to currently be a communist society.
comment in response to
post
Obama actively helped sabotage Sanders campaign because of the more socialist policies, and played a massive part in the wealth transfer to the upper class.
Obama was an okay president in a sea of awful ones, but you'd have to be blind or naive to call him our best one lol.
comment in response to
post
The American military is honestly just a complete joke outside of Europe.
Their entire doctrine is built around starting and winning a war with the Soviet Union, and now Russia. It seldom applies to any other country, more less unconventional warfare.
comment in response to
post
Wild that the Soviet Union didn't have any cases of famine or starvation after 1947, but the US consistently has to this day 20k people dying of malnutrition every year.
Insane that the leading cause of death for seniors in the US was starvation till FDR passed social security, gasp socialism.
comment in response to
post
And yes it's ridiculous to require dumbing down literature, but it's important to meet the social political state of your society where it's at. If dumbing down literature is what it takes to create a class consciousness then dumb down the essays and books.
comment in response to
post
There's an ever decreasing literacy and shortening attention span in modern society. The issue isn't that leftists read too much, it's that our literature isn't accessible to the masses.
If anything people need to read more, and we need to adapt our literature to be understood by the average person
comment in response to
post
Tbh I couldn't remember the exact economic growth of the USSR in say 1975. So I just didn't want to make the claim that it wasn't stagnating at the time till I at least could go home and verify that lol.
Ty for clarifying it though.
comment in response to
post
Yes you want food abundance, that is always the goal, and had the west not heavily sanctioned the USSR and refused to trade with it they probably could have solved that. But starvation and malnourishment did not exist, no one was dying from lack of food, and no evidence exists to support that claim.
comment in response to
post
It had starvation when it collapsed and entire systems that rural communities relied on fell apart.
You are free to go look at statistics after Glasnost when the USSR government became more open and see starvation did not functionally exist. People at a bare minimum had enough food to live.
comment in response to
post
The USSR was not perfect by any measurement, but the idea it was this awful place with mass starvation is such ridiculous propaganda. It was a poor country, yes, and when you look at the circumstances it was contending with its honestly quite an achievement they solved destitution while the US didnt
comment in response to
post
There wasn't an abundance of food with 4 different brands of bread yes. But the idea that people were starving and facing destitution is a false one. Primarily rural communities had shortages that meant you got enough food to live and that was it. It wasn't starvation or malnourishment.
comment in response to
post
Stagnation does not inherently mean the economic system wasn't meeting the needs of its people. The USSR was not a capitalist economy, looking at it through a capitalist lens is foolish and doesn't make sense.
Everyone was fed, housed, and had access to education.
comment in response to
post
It's important to note that the ussr still did not have destitution despite the heightened poverty in 1990, while the US did and still does.
comment in response to
post
1970-1980 is generally considered its economic peak. Though if we go by the US definition of poverty, the USSR was at its worst post ww2 of 12% poverty rate in 1990-1991. The US today is at 11.1%, and was ~13.5% in 1990.
So take that information as you will.
comment in response to
post
nitpicking the 1990's after failing liberalized economic policies by Gorbachev is honestly just disingenuous lol.
Poverty by what metric also matters a lot. The USSR had 0% destitution at its peak. Capitalist countries had, and still have destitution to this day.
comment in response to
post
This isn't to say UBI is bad. But it doesn't actually solve anything in the long term. It's just part of the social democrat playbook of vaguely giving an inch to socialists to avert a revolution and destruction of the capitalist class.
comment in response to
post
UBI works as a patch to a broken wall, it doesn't fix the fact the wood inside it is rotting.
It'll help reduce poverty and raise quality of life until it doesn't. Then another small patch happens to the wall till capitalists bring it down again andddd we're just describing social democrats.
comment in response to
post
Seriously, our B-52's are set to fly till they're over 100 years old. 20 years is nothing for a well maintained aircraft.
comment in response to
post
Capitalism has made a lot of people forget humanity is where it is today because people shared what they learned, not hoarding it for the sake of profit :p
comment in response to
post
It's protocol 1 of the 4th Geneva convention :p
Unless the state can justify the military value of the target is proportional to the civilians killed, or the destruction of a hospital, then it's illegal to bomb it.
It's not even an argument to be had, Israeli armed forces are war criminals.
comment in response to
post
Capitalism creates artificial scarcity in order to turn a profit. When we actually distribute *everything* we are capable of producing within modern social labor times, the world has no real scarcities beyond luxury goods, like expensive cars or yachts. Which are a waste of resources anyways.
comment in response to
post
That's not how scarcity works even in a capitalist system. Money is not a material product, it's a paper we assign arbitrary values to.
The US alone creates enough food to feed everyone on earth 2000 calories a day, we create enough housing to house everyone here, etc. there is no scarcity
comment in response to
post
When I'm in a "doesn't actually know what communism is" competition and my opponent is a social democrat.
comment in response to
post
First one was a friendly fire shoot down by a ddg in the strike group, second one was being towed and fell off due to incompetence, and third was an arresting failure, which means the pilot fucked up lol.
That same carrier also ran into a merchant ship, I honestly buy everyone on the ship is dumb.
comment in response to
post
Shapiro sits in a self-created spot where if racism gets *too* normalized, he's on the chopping block.
He so desperately wants subtle systemic racism against brown people that he benefits from, but if racism becomes completely normalized again, they'll eventually go for him and other Jewish people
comment in response to
post
It's funnier to wait and watch them accidentally set themselves on fire tbh.
comment in response to
post
USSR starts an imperial war in Afghanistan - "See!! Communism bad!!"
America starts an imperial war in Afghanistan - "well America is actually the good guys of the world so this doesn't negatively reflect on America nor capitalism at all. They were just overthrowing a corrupt government!"
comment in response to
post
Cool, now go look at actually cited graphs of the deaths capitalism has caused.
You idiots love to point and go "Look this state killed a lot of people!!" (With no evidence of it) as indictments of communism, but slide off colonialism and the millions capitalism killed as indictments of states.
comment in response to
post
Can people at least die on the hill of a good fictional universe? Like of all things to refuse to give up, it's harry potter?? Literally anything good about it is fan made?? You can go find any terrible story and do it there instead!!
comment in response to
post
On the other note, those policies wouldn't have happened had the western bourgeois not been solely set on fucking over the USSR out of fear of revolution spreading. The US was the aggressor throughout the entire cold war, the US's constant military growth is what made the USSR so rightfully paranoid
comment in response to
post
So over people saying communism is why the USSR fell behind and not Khrushchev's ridiculous change to irrationally paranoid "survival of the state" policies, keeping a ridiculous amount of things classified and away from Soviet public goods.
comment in response to
post
I refuse to take anyone who says "I don't know what that means" seriously. You have a tiny computer in your pocket capable of telling you what the word means. If you aren't able to figure it out, you aren't smart enough to bother entertaining a conversation with.
comment in response to
post
Seeing Phantasmagoria used insultingly honestly made me giggle. Weirdly creative way to call someone delusional.
comment in response to
post
Here's a 194 page journal on it from antipolitika, it's in English
antipolitika.noblogs.org/files/2020/0...
Hoxha wrote a good piece on it
www.marxists.org/reference/ar...
And here's a piece Tito wrote
www.marxists.org/archive/tito...
Hopefully these help ^-^
comment in response to
post
Russia bombs a residential district and you're all screaming calling them orcs. IDF bombs a residential district but the victims are Arabs and it's "that's just how war is".
You lot have an obnoxious double standard. As long as the victims aren't white you don't care.
comment in response to
post
Also adding Shaw was alive in the 19th century, where nationalism was only seen as a movement for popular sovereignty, and generally a good thing that was anti-monarchist. See liberal nationalism rebellions in 1830 and 1848.
comment in response to
post
He's going off the literal definitions, not the colloquial. Nationalism literally speaking is just the belief that a nation deserves its own state. It only became related to extreme patriotism after 1914.
It wasn't until ~1980's America that anyone started using them separately again.
comment in response to
post
It again was not for altruistic reasons. The US like every country to exist, is not compassionate, it does not care about people. It only cares about what benefits it, and it was perfectly willing to kill millions of people for the sake of getting rid a hostile state to Israel and its own interest.
comment in response to
post
If your idea of for resources is literally taking the resource then you dont know how global markets function lol. It was as much about controlling resource scarcity and making money for companies as it was the US deciding Saddam being in power wasnt in its interests.
comment in response to
post
The US has also inadvertently caused well over a million deaths in Iraq by recent figures. The US went way over Saddam's murders not very long into the invasion and occupation.
Just because they weren't millions of violent deaths doesn't mean they weren't caused by the US's destabilization of Iraq
comment in response to
post
Saddam was by no means a good person, but to act like America left Iraq in anything other than an objectively worse state prior to the 2003 invasion is just ridiculous.
We didn't invade for altruistic reasons either, we did it for resources and installing a friendly government.
comment in response to
post
If territorial liberation is counted loosely, decolonization from European powers would greatly skew that data towards peaceful being more successful, completely ignoring the political circumstances they were left in.
comment in response to
post
The data set you've shown also does not define or explain what they're counting as campaigns besides loosely using overthrow and territorial liberation. Nor is it specifying the political nature of those campaigns. I.e fascist revolution vs socialist revolutions success rates.
comment in response to
post
That's not really paying attention to the full data if the only thing you're taking away is non-violent is more successful than violent.
The data shows any campaign with =>3.5% of the population is successful, and non-violent ones on average attract 4x the amount of people.
comment in response to
post
Getting called an extremist by my brother because I acknowledge the reality a 'peaceful' revolution isn't possible and eventually you're going to have to violently deal with a ruling class that doesn't want to give up its power, and deal with their ridiculous followers😊
comment in response to
post
Kinda? The UK has continuously proven itself to be more of a reference to where the US is going rather than following it.
I wouldn't say the UK is any quieter about it. It just happens before the US so we all kinda move on from their bullshit, then the UK does bullshit again and we compare again.