Cowbee [he/him]

Almost every democratic structure practices Democratic Centralism, it just means the group is bound to the democratic results.

Soviet Democracy. Workers elect delegates from among themselves, who can then be subject to instant recall elections at any time. Remove the “career politician” aspects from government.

I have a PC that can push 4k120, it’s overblown and a luxury if anything.

The Steam Deck is absolutely strong enough for “proper gaming,” whatever that means.

Cherry picking survey to support your position while ignoring overwhelming majority voting to exit Russian clown state along with every other republic.

Didn’t cherry pick at all, Socialism was better for Ukranians and every group in the former USSR. Additionally, it’s quite the opposite to say that most people wanted out of the USSR, the vast majority wished to retain the USSR in a popular vote. The USSR was dissolved illegally against the will of the people.

Saying this shit while Ukraine has to fight a war for its existance is beyond idiotic. Who do you think you covering with this?

Are you under the impression that the Russian Federation is somehow still Communist, or are you just racist against Russians? What’s your point, here? Are you saying you hate the USSR because they were Russian, not because they were Communists, or was this just a fumbled point?

Do you ever wonder why Warsaw pack states joined EU and NATO first chance they got?

Shock Therapy destroyed these countries, 7 million people died due to the collapse of the USSR. The Warsaw Pact nations flocked to the more stable western nations as the same western nations plundered the remnants of the USSR.

Must be because life under Russian boot was that great lol

Again, as we can see, life was better under Socialism, more economically stable, and more democratic, hence why people that actually lived in the USSR have a highly consistent favorable opinion.

Please, read modern history books written after the opening of the Soviet Archives, where historians were finally granted access to internal historical evidence. Right now your only argument is just that you think Russians themselves are bad, which is blatant racism.

Which part is fake, and why? Your beloved wikipedia agrees with what I’m saying here too, I just thought you might like to see direct sources. Do you have a single source?

After they killed the czars, they turned on the people.

Yea, they helped the people by ending famines, doubling life expectancy, getting to 99% literacy rates, provided free college and healthcare, and democratized government.

That’s the part tankie won’t teach you folks but a quick Wikipedia search should explain to you what they did to the peasants, esp in Ukraine and Kazakhstan

Are you genuinely under the impression that Marxists somehow spent their entire lives avoiding western narratives around the USSR, read dozens of books on history and theory, and somehow have never once seen the western point of view? Are you specifically referring to events, or their entire history?

As an example, prior to the current Russo-Ukranian conflict escalating in 2022, in 2019 62% of Ukranians said they were worse off then, than under Communism. Ukranians enjoyed being a part of the USSR more than they do being a part of the current Ukranian State. Similarly, Central Asia (including Kazakhstan) is not without Soviet Nostalgia either.

This is, of course, after you said using violence against oppressors makes you no better than them, which automatically makes you anti-Palestine, pro-Confederacy, anti-Haitian Slave Revolt, anti-French Revolution, and against all violent liberatory movements, if we assume you to be morally consistent.

If you are doing this shot at a gun point, you are no better than the regime you are fighting

Oppressed people have the right to use violence to liberate themselves. Were the Haitian Slaves wrong for killing their Masters? Was John Brown wrong for killing Slave Owners? Were the French wrong for killing the Monarchy? Were the Bolsheviks wrong for killing the Tsar? Are Palestinians wrong for killing the IDF?

Violence is a tool that should be used sparingly and carefully, yes. It should be avoided, if possible. However, if non-violence is proven to not work, then that leaves violence, or threat of violence, as the remaining path.

The idea that using violence against oppressors makes you “no better than them” is useless moralism used to justify an extremely violent system that daily beats its subjects.

What a clown take to glorify Bolsheviks’ crimes.

Was it a crime to liberate Russia from the brutal Tsars and pull Russia out of the highly unpopular and bloody World War I?

How is this anymore acceptable than “people voted for Hitler” shit?

What on Earth are you talking about? Why are you comparing liberatory violence with voting in Hitler?

Of course it’s not as simple as just saying organize, I never said it was. Organizing remains the only path out, and it is possible.

The bolsheviks managed to, as have other revolutionary groups.

No, harder. Much, much harder.

Most have, increasingly so, they just lack strong orgs. As Imperialism decays, more will be forced to grapple with reality.

You can organize.

If only Prisoners were being taught Marxist theory.

That pretty much sums them up nicely. Both represent the two sides of dying Empire.

Trump is a bit of a wrecking ball, his far-right populist rhetoric appeals to rising material frustrations with the Petite Bourgeoisie, ie small business owners and the like, along nationalist lines. Strong aesthetic patriotism, lack of consistency or coherence, promises of restoring grander times and power. General far-right nonsense that sees dying Empire as it is, but blaming it on immigrants and minorities instead of addressing material conditions.

Harris is plucked straight from the stock-standard Empire maintainers. Her policies are largely Biden’s promises carried over, with firm Imperialist support for Israel and “the most lethal military in the world.” She isn’t attempting to appeal to fascists, but she is trying to appeal to those with vested interest in maintaining Imperial Hegemony. Small concessions and frequent doublespeak - claiming Climate Change is an existential threat in one breath, then boldly taking pride in record gas production and promising to never ban fracking in the next. She’s more coherent, which ironically makes the double-speak stand out clearer.

It would be funny if it wasn’t tragic.

It isn’t derailing, the comment was about Trump’s chances getting smaller, when there are material reasons for Trump’s chances to get larger despite his poor performance specifically due to salient issues in swing states.

The question is, does making the US Venezuela on steroids also include pulling out of NATO?

I am literally talking about the debate, though. This isn’t a random Harris thread, she very clearly went on a Zionist tirade in the face of her losing ground in Michigan and other Swing States with high percentages of Muslim-American voters, that’s factually a bad move that could impact her electoral chances, regardless of my personal disdain for genocide.

With any luck, that number just got smaller,

The Zionist tangent from Kamala is likely going to alienate more Muslim-Americans, which genuinely puts Michigan into question. Muslim-Americans have been leaning more towards Stein and West than Harris according to polling, so we will have to see.

Trump looked more incoherent this time than in the previous debates, what with the “immigrants are coming to eat your pets” line and other zingers like post-birth abortion nonsense. There were also some weird moments where he said stuff like “Kamala hates Israel,” prompting her to go off on her undying loyalty to Israel.

Harris was overall more presentable, but had some horrible policy moments, such as repeating debunked claims about sexual assault on October 7th as she restated her undying loyalty to Israel (which could materially cost her Michigan as Muslim voters are turning to Stein and Cornel West over Harris), or stating that Climate Change is an existential threat in one breath and promising to never ban fracking in the next, along with bragging about gas production.

Overall it’s a clear “win” for Harris over Trump if we are purely measuring debate performance, Harris looked far better and answered more coherently, though her environmental positions, immigration positions, and foreign policy are far to the right of where they should be, especially concerning swing state polling.

That is, of course, ignoring my personal disdain for liberalism and both candidates in general for being far-right, this is purely an analysis of the debate within the context of the election.