They're hoping for another Khrushchev or Gorbachev, someone who'll just make shit up about the previous regime and satiate western lust for vindication pending a shred of evidence.
I need no evidence, I'm quite confident I've seen them so wacky shit before.
Substantiate my claims? No, thank you.
Also who wants to bet this arsehole needs evidence for every damn thing Usia/Israel/Ukraine do, when they've done it a thousand times before and it's better-documented than the colour of the sky.
Doesn't fight to the death imply, ya know, death? How're they going to make a cup of coffee dead? Also running for one's life doesn't have an age cutoff, older people can still run like hell when they come under fire.
What sort of depraved lunatic would derive some sort of enjoyment or comfort from the notion that the Ukrainian soldiers cannot fight and therefore have to fight to the death? This looks like the hellish mix of denial and bargaining. About as healthy a mix as benzos and heroin.
List of periphery/colony countries that had a war involving imperialists, the imperialists won and the country went on to become an industrial hub:
...
List of countries privatised to shreds only to produce more than ever:
...
On the other hand, if we lay down and file all the westerners coping about how they haven't destroyed the Ukraine, we could go around the world 20 times over.
No they ain't. R/ecs lobotomties believe the dumbest horseshit anyone saw in a fever dream of it makes the commies look bad and the sky might well be green if raising their head indicates the commies have done a single good deed ever.
I'm certain I know what all these words mean but have no idea what you meant. Could you explain?
Meanwhile european cyclists: What the fuck are these pedestrians doing on the street? Can't they see me riding erratically all over the pavement?
Literally anything is better than usian drivers but these arseholes get on my nerves sometimes.
I don't believe either candidate is doing a bad job gutting the US on the inside, though as an outsider my perspective is limited.
On the diplomatic front, absolutely. During Trump's term, most usian "allies" took the dumb shit he did as the temporary acts of some man-child. The corpse of Joe Biden is disproving the myth of the adults in charge in real time. He started a losing war in the Ukraine and now he's practically overseeing a genocide. What's more, he could've let Trump have sinophobia, but he chose to reveal that democrats could be just as sabre-rattling.
At this point anyone who isn't as dignified as Obama is fine though. It's all a race to the bottom with the bourgeois dictatorships and only an articulate, pretty face can mask that, and even that not for long.
The range of opinions in Usia:
This is what they fought 72 world wars and a dozen galactic invasions folks, freeze peach baby.
At great cost I presume, this sort of thing can't be cheap
I googled but I can't figure out the heads or tails of these results.
What does "In 1982 Reagan called Menachem Begin and ceasefire was declared 15 minutes later" mean? I think it means Biden needs to provide more bombs to be dropped on Rafah.
That's a smaller capacity than I expected with your praise, but the lack of significant deterioration is actually amazing. Thank you very much for your answer!
The growth was solid and stocks kept hitting record heights in 2008 as well. I'll remind you that that fiasco only blew up after the banks for a piece of the action.
The wall's too dignified for this one, chuck him down the pit.
Maybe it's better in spanish
Could you define "insane battery life" for me? Also after two years how good is it compared to when you first got it?
I looked at only one comment, the highest actual comment on the first link. The cited books don't lead me to believe this guy's well-read at all, not only because of the weird format, but also they're not the useful kind of citation that backs up central claims.
Parenti's work speaks vaguely about "less inequality", "public ownership of the means of production", and "priority placed on human services", but these statements say nothing about the real, systemic experiences of Soviet citizens, particularly industrial workers who were explicitly supposed formed the basis of Soviet society. Saying that there was "public ownership" of industry is a truism. It tells us nothing about what state ownership and management meant for ordinary Soviet industrial laborers in terms of wages, working hours, factory management, social mobility, and more broadly their participation in Soviet society. It's a "socialist" history of the USSR with the working class' real, material experiences written out.
I know this feels right to people who haven't got a grasp on the fact that they live in a capitalist society. All manner of improvements can be made to the superstructure of a capitalist society, it won't become equal. How do I know the USSR was socialist? For most of its existence it didn't have a class of people with an overrepresented influence over its administration or the functioning of its society. Specific statistics and policies that indicate prosperity or democracy aren't immaterial, but they are only ancillary.
Parenti spends no time engaging with the vast academic literature on Russian and Soviet workers and labor history. Most of these works are written by socialist scholars interested in examining the role of class and labor in Soviet society.
The poster has to know this ain't true. Western historiography on the subject of the USSR and other worker states is notoriously devoid of first-hand accounts and documents. Grover Furr calls attention to this in many of his speeches and writings: a medieval historian who doesn't have a good grasp of multiple languages used in the region they're studying is rightly a laughingstock, yet how many historians of the USSR speak (or just read) russian? How many historians of seeseepee know mandarin?
... In none of these works is the Soviet state itself a producer or unfiltered transmitter of worker's "class interests", inasmuch as scholarship nowadays accepts the idea that such a diverse group - in terms of gender, background, geography, and profession - could have a coherent set of interests.
I'm not sure I'm reading this right, but I think the dimwit is proposing the proletariat doesn't exist because intersectionality makes class interests too complicated, which would be as correct as the dodo population is numerous. We're who we are here, we've at least skimmed Capital, we're better than to believe added factors change the core of a system.
Parenti largely avoids engaging with the question of how "socialist" the USSR was in a substantive way. He skips description of what the USSR "was" for excuses about "why". Certainly its leaders were convinced Marxists, and this set of beliefs pervaded every aspect of the USSR's existence. ...
And so on and so on. How someone could read Blackshirts and Reds and come away with the singular question "Why didn't the author prove to my satisfaction that the USSR was communist?" is beyond me. I might be convinced they never read a word Parenti wrote considering their entire comment, it's filled with stuff they may have gotten from reviews.
Tbf I also wouldn't give 0.1% of my income to save that rash.
I'm glad to see so many nice people valiantly proposing misandry exists even if not to the same degree as misogyny.
Except of course OP is right, misandry isn't real, for the same reason anti-white racism isn't. Social inconvenience on a personal level does not add up to be comparable to actual bigotry, therefore some analogous concept doesn't exist.
The Alternative Polka by Weird Al Yankovic
Huh. Must be a day that ends with y.
Propaganda isn't for the enemies, it's domestic. You keep Rome stable so you can fight your imperialistic wars in peace. It's hard to fill your coffers under scrutiny.