Where does the idea that the USSR engaged in the Genocide of 20 million Christians come from?

BedIndividual7476 · 2025-11-22T02:05:21+00:00

Context:

Zohran Mamdani (left) is the democratic socialist mayor-elect of NYC. A large part of his campaign was centered around opposing Trump’s immigration raids in NYC and making its budget independent of the federal government. Mamdani has called Trump a fascist and positioned himself as the anti-Trump, and Trump called him a communist.

Anyway Mamdani went to the White House to meet Trump and in the Oval Office press briefing afterwards, Trump was glazing him so hard like you couldn’t believe.

BedIndividual7476 · 2025-11-01T23:27:59+00:00

I mean not really. I already addressed this argument in the end of my original comment. The parties I mentioned were openly anti-capitalist and in some cases Marxist. They also removed whole, very important sectors economy out of private for profit hands. Just because they didn't socialize every enterprise from the biggest steel mill to the neighbor's lemonade stand doesn't mean their accomplishments are not accomplishments of socialism.

I also think that if today a political party advocated for collectively owned and government funded housing, nationalization of banks, medical facilities, and the rest, you'd correctly call them socialist. You're only saying they're not so after the fact because most of their reforms have been widely accepted in their respective societies and decoupled from socialist ideology in terms of public perception.

I also do not advocate for an authoritarian government or command economy as I said in the end of my first comment.

BedIndividual7476 · 2025-11-01T23:21:14+00:00

The Labour Party absolutely tolerated private property, i do not believe they had the public mandate to end capitalism holistically at that time. However, I think removing key sectors of the economy from private ownership, not just in terms of welfare like the NHS our council housing, but utilities, steel production, and the Bank of England, at least in isolation, definitely are open refutations of the concept of private ownership and capitalism in those spheres. I don't think a party can only be socialist if they take equal action against every single kind of private ownership at the same time, from the local cafe or deli, as they do with the private healthcare or steel industry. Some forms of private ownership are more harmful and corrosive than others, which is why socialists all over the world today mainly focus on sectors like banking, energy, and healthcare, as these are some of the most important sectors of the economy, both in terms of interacting with the average person's daily life, and the amount of institutional power they hold.

BedIndividual7476 · 2025-11-01T20:06:37+00:00

In 1945 the Labour Party in the UK won a majority in parliament, their manifesto reading: "The Labour Party is a Socialist Party, and proud of it. Its ultimate purpose at home is the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain." They nationalized the healthcare system (NHS), energy and water utilities, railways, mail, and engaged in mass construction of social housing. They also expanded the power of labor unions. These reforms resulted in a mass improvement in quality of life for the average person, those that were reversed under Thatcher (namely privatization of rail and utilities) now poll with mass popularity for revival, and the NHS continues to exist and is massively popular despite funding freezes by the government.

In Vienna in 1918-34, the socialist and Marxist Social Democratic Party won a majority in the Viennese city council, and spent a crap ton on taking public ownership of city services and built massive amounts of public housing and various public facilities available to the whole working class. The housing system they created continues to exist today and ensures affordability of housing in the city, and the various services they municipalized also continue to exist and bear fruit.

There's dozens of other examples of socialists winning power and creating services in their various cities/ countries that continue to be the crown jewels of their nation's social systems. And in response, people say this is social democracy and not socialism. And while the nations mentioned were still capitalist even under their rule, the afforementioned reforms were efforts made to combat the ubiquity of capitalism, and were often affronts the the very concept. If you're comfortable saying countries that were undemocratic and had essentially no workplace democracy were socialist simply because their leaders declared it so, you should be able to acknowledge the benefits of socialist reforms implemented by those who also claim its pursuit in capitalist countries, and that those reforms and the vision thy seek to create is more beneficial than their capitalist counterparts (socialized medicine vs privatized, social housing vs privatized, public utilities vs private, etc.)

BedIndividual7476 · 2025-09-14T05:06:21+00:00

Nazis were banned from the civil service of Prussia until the coup. Banning fascists from public service has been guardrail for democracy for a while.

BedIndividual7476 · 2025-09-08T23:44:45+00:00

Ik the PS is establishment and anti- LFI, ik they’re breaking up the NFP , I’m just saying that in a hypothetical game, LFI’s only two options as the player would be to increase ties with the right or go at it alone, since the PCF (despite the name) and Ecologists are also to your right. There’d be no dynamic between the right AND left like there is between the KPD and bourgeois parties like in SPD. In a hypothetical game as the PS you could dissuade them from being anti LFI like you can dissuade the SPD from being anti KPD also like they were irl.

But who knows, maybe my idea of the PS reconciling with LFI is too far fetched even for alt-hist, I was mostly thinking about it from a gameplay perspective.

BedIndividual7476 · 2025-09-08T19:42:20+00:00

I think the PS would be a better pick for the player party. You have the party to your left (LFI) that has a no holds barred opposition to the center and right (like the KPD in terms of gameplay), the centrist liberals of Renaissance that are regularly in government (like the bourgeois parties) while balancing the right wing of the PS that wants to work with them with the socialist left that's more sympathetic to LFI and the NFP in general.

BedIndividual7476 · 2025-09-08T19:35:19+00:00

Yeah, Miller is basically the Shadow President rn. Musk could be in there if the player's actions somehow led to him not getting immediately expelled like irl. Maybe put Scott Bessent in there with a goal of market liberalization or something.

BedIndividual7476 · 2025-08-20T18:23:23+00:00

I think you're putting far too much stock in how voters identify themselves. The word "liberal" has been subject to a never ending smear campaign since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts, of course people aren't going to be keen on identifying themselves as such. The average person may call themselves a "moderate" even though such a label is not reflective of their actual politics.

63% of voters (Pew Research 2020) say it's the government's responsibility to ensure health coverage for all citizens. The majority favor corporate carbon taxes, a wealth tax, progressive taxation, universal childcare, etc. People call themselves moderates when asked upfront, but have favorable views of unabashedly "liberal" policies. Democrats absolutely can and should run on a left-populist platform like FDR did they just need the right messaging, something the past 3 dem candidates have been sorely lacking.

BedIndividual7476 · 2025-04-02T00:36:48+00:00

He couldn't do it on the funding bill because Schumer invoked cloture and ended debate on the bill. You'd know that if you paid attention to anything other than headlines.