• 1 Post
  • 305 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 9th, 2025

help-circle
  • There’s a bit of a fundamental difference between capitalism and other systems. Mercantilism sucked but conquistadors got some level of pushback for their atrocities. The Spanish crown fought a war over illegal slavery and the vast majority of conquistadors died poor or in obscurity.

    Modern capitalism has no such brakes. Naked avarice is the mathematically correct play, exponentially growing the power of an individual at the expense of literally everyone else.

    It’s not likely that other economic systems could result in this level of global instability and ecological collapse. A king used to have some incentive to keep his society functioning; his personal power was tied to the power his kingdom could project, not his personal wealth. Our modern overlords have no problem destroying their country or environment, their wealth is fungible and can be taken wherever they want.











  • Crazy that the original post said nothing about what antifascists do or don’t do but people insist on projecting.

    “Fascists aren’t gaining power. Antifascists are making a comeback”

    The first sentence is necessary (but not sufficient) for beating fascism; the second is a statement of momentum.

    Antifascism has existed as long as fascism, well before any guns were fired or wars were fought. It encompasses many different approaches to opposing fascism and isn’t even strictly a left-wing position (revolutionary vs counter revolutionary).

    If you think the only viable playbook to beat fascism is revolutionary accelerationism, that’s a logical stance to take. But it makes no sense to be upset when other people use the term differently.


  • Sensationalist? They give a very clear picture of what the orders were and are a perfect microcosm of how Stalin’s regime operated with the violently anti-communist Nazi’s.

    As your well sourced historical analysis states there are plausible reasons for the policy but that doesn’t change the fact that the USSR acted to project and protect its own influence. You don’t get to dress it up as “saviors of Europe” or “benevolent protectors of Poland”.

    As for using Russia and USSR interchangeably, I pretty obviously use it due to the outsized russkie influence on USSR policy. Stalin’s USSR was a hard turn from Lenin’s korenisatsiya, Russian culture and interests were first among “equals” (from Stalin’s own mouth). Waxing lyrical about the USSR’s diversity is pretty irrelevant in most conversations and especially here.

    And next time you stalk someone’s post history, use a little more critical thinking. In no way do I support just about any of the USA’s foreign policy. I call a spade a spade and operate in real life, outside the confines of internet ideology. You have no clue what I do or don’t do in real life, regardless of what I post. Keep fighting that strawman, trooper, maybe it will go better for you than this thread.


  • Dang bro you had Russian imperial apologism ready to go that quick? Impressive.

    I’m not going to engage with most of what you wrote because everything I’ve said is a fact, it’s not up for argument. The maps delineating eastern Europe exist, these conflicts happened. The Soviets oh-so-valiantly opposed nazi aggression except for when they didn’t.

    Hey look, here’s a Soviet and Nazi officer shaking hands after the invasion of Poland:

    Here’s a German soldier giving flowers to the crew of a Russian tank:

    Somehow if you’re a fan of an imperial power (UK, US, USSR, RUS, CHN, etc…) your invasions are always the product of specific circumstance. It’s always actually a liberation, or counter terrorism or defending world order. Your puppet government is always an improvement. The other team are the true bloodthirsty enemies.

    Let me cut through your mincing of the facts:

    The Soviet Union invaded Poland 2 weeks after the Nazis, at a time

    It’s not a secret that western powers were opposed to the Soviets; it’s not a secret that they did it to protect their own interests. If they cared more about being a bulwark against fascism those pictures would be Russian troops fighting side by side with the Poles. They could have even pushed into the German lines at any point before Operation Barbarossa.

    They did eventually win the eastern front, but they looked out for their own interests first. There are a lot of counterfactual histories where millions of lives are saved by decisive cooperation.


  • Here’s how the Soviets save the Poles:

    This might be the most backward brain rot comment I’ve ever read. Just gonna rapid fire through these…

    • Poland existed for a long ass time, even when it wasn’t on the map. It had no less than 6 armed conflicts and rebellions against the Russian Empire.
    • Poland lost 6 million people in WW2, 17% of their population; by far the largest of any country. If you want to play who-suffered-most they’re getting gold.
    • Maybe they would have lost less had the Soviets not joined the Germans in slicing up their country. They literally staked out what parts of eastern Europe they would own…
    • Polish independence was gained through the collapse of the Russian Empire; Moscow was in no position to claim control over anything anyway
    • Lenin renegged on that “self determination” just a few years later in 1919 when they marched the Red Army into Poland and annexed Kresy

    There’s a reason a Pole will tell you never trust a Russian, they’ve never been grateful vassals. I don’t subscribe to America’s red scare propoganda but you’re an idiot to whitewash Soviet foreign policy.