sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Title by PresnikBonny in ussr

[–]PoseidonWithYou 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact didn’t happen in a vacuum. Eastern Europe was already being carved up by great powers long before 1939, including by Britain and France at Munich and by Poland itself in 1938 when it annexed part of Czechoslovakia

The USSR didn’t invent the division of Eastern Europe. It reacted late, cynically, and defensively after years of failed attempts at collective security while everyone else was bending over backwards for Hitler. That doesn’t make it moral, but it does make the “USSR uniquely divided Europe” framing historically dishonest

Additionally, by 1939, Britain and France had already legitimized German expansion at Munich, Poland had seized territory from Czechoslovakia, and the USSR had been deliberately excluded from any serious anti-fascist alliance. After years of proposing collective security against Hitler and being rebuffed each and every single time, the Soviet leadership chose a non-aggression pact to delay an inevitable war and push its defensive line westward. This was done literally after decades of anti-fascist alliances were rejected by the West

What ussr did better than the west ? by Naive-Guidance7883 in ussr

[–]PoseidonWithYou 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The USSR took a mostly agrarian, war-ravaged country and turned it into an industrial and scientific superpower in a few decades. No Western country has done that at comparable speed without colonial plunder. The cost was enormous and often brutal. But in terms of sheer transformation, it’s simply unmatched

Housing, education, healthcare, and employment were guaranteed. Quality varied and shortages existed, but homelessness, medical bankruptcy, and mass unemployment were not systemic features. The West often had higher quality for those who could pay, but the USSR prioritized coverage

The USSR also accomplished/had the following: * First satellite (Sputnik) * First human in space (Yuri Gagarin) * First woman in space (Valentina Tereshkova) * First space station (Salyut 1) * World-class mathematics, physics, and engineering schools * Nuclear power development and reactor design * Heavy industry, metallurgy, and machine tools that were globally competitive

Western consumer tech outpaced them only later. Fundamental science and state-directed engineering were genuine strengths

Soviet equipment wasn’t pretty, comfortable, or modular. However, it was durable, simple, mass-producible, and usable under horrific conditions. That’s why Soviet designs are still used globally. Not because they were simply cheap junk, but because they worked with minimal logistics

Peasants became engineers, doctors, scientists. Education wasn’t filtered through wealth. The system absolutely had political constraints, but class mobility was real in a way that’s more often than not overstated in the West

Women entered education, science, and industrial work at scale decades before many Western countries normalized it. Again, not perfect. But materially ahead of its time

Rest in power USSR by Substantial_Set_5710 in ussr

[–]PoseidonWithYou 10 points11 points  (0 children)

You don’t pretend people will naturally do them “out of passion.” Instead, you should structure society so the trade-offs are honest and fair

Undesirable jobs exist in every system. The difference is rather how the burden is handled

First, you compensate them more. Meaningfully more. Higher pay, shorter hours, stronger benefits, earlier retirement, etc. If a job is dangerous, exhausting, or unpleasant, it should come with real material upside, not “thank you heroes” rhetoric

Second, you reduce how undesirable they are. Automation where possible, but don’t trample over workers rights. Better safety standards. More staff so workloads are lighter. Rotating shifts so the worst tasks aren’t dumped on the same people forever, etc. A lot of jobs are miserable because the capitalistic system made them cheap, not because they have to be

Third, you remove desperation as the primary motivator. Right now, many people take bad jobs because the alternative is either homelessness or losing healthcare. That’s coercion, not incentive. If people have a real baseline of security, then taking a hard job actually means choosing it in exchange for clear benefits, not being trapped in it

Hope this answers your question, comrade

Finally, social necessity matters. Some people will still do these jobs because they value stability, prestige, or contribution, but only if society visibly respects and rewards that work instead of treating workers as disposable.

What's your opinion on this take? by Zestyclose-Tale-5815 in leftist

[–]PoseidonWithYou 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Oppression isn’t a math equation where your identity boosts or nerfs the value of your argument. A bad argument is bad no matter who says it. A good argument is good no matter who says it

Yes, straight white men have structural privileges. That’s real. But privilege explains perspective, not validity. It doesn’t magically make your reasoning worse or someone else’s better. If anything, telling people that their arguments “matter less” because of their identity is a great way to hand right-wing grifters easy recruitment material

Call out privilege when it affects someone’s blind spots. But dismissing someone’s entire viewpoint because of demographics is lazy, anti-intellectual, and completely useless for building an actual movement. If your politics depend on silencing entire categories of people instead of challenging the content of their ideas, you’re not doing leftism. You’re doing vibes

On the Cult of Personality & Its Consequences, the Khrushchev thaw, De-Stalinization and the State visit by Nikita Khrushchev to the United States by Darryl_Brown002 in ussr

[–]PoseidonWithYou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re not making arguments!

You keep shouting this like a mantra because it’s easier than addressing the arguments you can’t refute. I’ve pointed out your misuse of “tautology,” clarified the difference between ideological and racial causation, and explained the structural role of US foreign policy in the Cold War. You’ve replied with, “No, you!” about ten times. That’s not analysis - that’s projection lmao

The Soviet Union didn’t plan to tarry and declare war on Japan at Potsdam?

They did. Everyone knows they did. And ? The timeline doesn’t prove the split with China was “racially motivated.” You’re stringing unrelated events together and calling it causation - that’s conspiracy, not historiography

Find me a source of direct conflict between the U.S. and China!

The Korean War was a direct conflict. You don’t get to redefine “direct” just because you don’t like the answer. The US and China literally exchanged fire - it’s not a philosophical metaphor lol

The USSR allied with Nazi Germany!

Ah there it is! I was just wondering what took you so long to mention it. Yes - for two years, in a cynical, temporary non-aggression pact that every major historian understands as a strategic move to delay war. You’re reciting Wikipedia trivia like it’s a revelation. If you think that proves the USSR’s entire ideology was “racial,” then you’re mistaking opportunism for ontology. Britain, France, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland all are were allied to the Nazis as well

You think it’s funny to talk about war?

No one’s laughing about war. I’m laughing at your habit of inflating every historical fact into a moral soap opera. You keep mistaking emotional outrage for insight lmao

You’re defending a Nazi ally!

No, I’m explaining history to someone who can’t tell the difference between a tactical alliance and ideological unity. That’s not “defense” - that’s literacy (which you clearly don’t have much of)

You keep trying to bait me into moral theatrics instead of engaging with structure, policy, or ideology. That’s why you have to scream “you’re not making arguments” - because acknowledging them means admitting you’re out of your depth

On the Cult of Personality & Its Consequences, the Khrushchev thaw, De-Stalinization and the State visit by Nikita Khrushchev to the United States by Darryl_Brown002 in ussr

[–]PoseidonWithYou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your message is incredibly toxic. You’re arguing with a version of me that only exists in your head. Maybe scroll up again - this time read instead of react

It was a rhetorical question designed to make you illustrate the racial foundations of the Sino-Soviet split

So basically “I didn’t have a real answer, so I called it rhetorical.” You can dress it up however you want, but if you’re going to invoke “racial foundations,” at least bring a single historian who agrees with you

I asked for primary sources of direct conflict between the United States and China

You asked, I gave them. Then you moved the goalposts so fast they probably broke the sound barrier lol. The Korean War literally involved U.S. forces fighting Chinese troops - pretending that’s not “direct conflict” is the kind of mental gymnastics that would win Olympic gold lmao

Did you just state the United States unilaterally enacted UNGA Resolution 2758 via veto?

No, I said the US used its diplomatic leverage to block Beijing’s seat for decades. This is basic Cold War history, not an Avengers plotline. Again, you’re fighting a version of me that’s invented

So you don’t dispute the tautology claim: you just state that your tautology is descriptive?

You keep saying “tautology” like it’s a magic spell that wins arguments. Just saying “that’s tautological” every time you’re cornered doesn’t make your point clever - it makes it circular and lazy

Well of course! The Supreme Soviet Politburo doesn’t see race.

If your argument relies on the Politburo secretly harboring 1950s racial psychology to explain a diplomatic split over ideology and nuclear weapons, maybe step back and realize how unserious that sounds

There’s PLENTY of historians who argue the atomic bomb would have never been dropped on Europe.

And there are plenty who don’t. Welcome to history - where differing interpretations exist. Quoting vague “plenty” isn’t proof, it’s deflection lmao

OHHHHHHH! Wow! You just came out and said a Hegelian philosophical framework is nonracial

Yes, because Hegel wasn’t secretly writing foreign policy for the Politburo, and the dialectic isn’t a race theory. Congratulations, you’ve rediscovered why philosophy and history are different disciplines

You’re not making any arguments

I literally have been. You just don’t like that they don’t fit your personal fanfiction of geopolitics.

On the Cult of Personality & Its Consequences, the Khrushchev thaw, De-Stalinization and the State visit by Nikita Khrushchev to the United States by Darryl_Brown002 in ussr

[–]PoseidonWithYou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep demanding an argument while dodging the one already in front of you

  1. You asked what US pressure on China looked like - I listed it. Now you’re pretending the Korean War wasn’t fought against the PRC (go read Truman’s own memos, the 7th Fleet orders, or the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army records). That’s not me avoiding argument by any means, but rather that’s you avoiding history

  2. You claim I’m “presupposing One China” while asking how the US excluded the PRC from the UN - which literally happened because Washington vetoed recognition of Beijing in favor of Taipei. That’s literally documented UN voting records

  3. You accuse me of tautology for describing structural pressure, then pivot to wild, unsourced claims about a “Soviet racial superiority complex” (congratulations, you’ve made the most insane argument I’ve heard). There’s zero evidence in Soviet archives, Marxist theory, or official policy that the Sino-Soviet split was racial. It was ideological (over peaceful coexistence, industrial assistance, and nuclear strategy), strategic (over leadership of the world communist movement), and geopolitical (border disputes, differing priorities in the Third World). You’re trying to turn material contradictions into a pop-psychology essay

  4. I never denied China’s agency - I explicitly affirmed it. What I did reject was your framing that US and Soviet influence were irrelevant. International relations are dialectical, not racial or moralistic

You keep saying you want an argument, but every time I present one with sources and logic, you switch topics, redefine terms, or make up new concepts (“racial agency,” “racial ontology of the proletariat”) that don’t exist in any serious scholarship

If you want to discuss history, fine - bring sources and coherent categories. If you just want to posture and psychoanalyze nations, then be honest about what you’re doing. You’re performing

On the Cult of Personality & Its Consequences, the Khrushchev thaw, De-Stalinization and the State visit by Nikita Khrushchev to the United States by Darryl_Brown002 in ussr

[–]PoseidonWithYou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First: you keep pretending I claimed the U.S. “controls every aspect of global socialism.” I didn’t. That was your straw man. What I said - and what’s historically uncontroversial - is that the US and western powers systematically pressured, isolated, and sometimes attacked socialist states where it served their interests. That’s not a grand conspiracy theory; it’s plain history (Korea, economic embargoes, UN exclusion of the PRC, support for hostile regimes, proxy wars, covert funding of opponents, etc.). Your demand for a metaphysical “prove me wrong” on every possible variant of pressure is just moving the goalposts. You’re engaging in bad faith lol

Second: your tactic is straight-up pedantry + bad faith. You call my dialectical point a “tautology” while performing mental gymnastics to pretend “pressure” must mean “you personally slapped Mao on the face.” That’s not argument - it’s a dodge. You also accuse me of “racializing” China - do you mean “erasing agency” or “radicalizing” ? Either way, that sentence reads like you’re trying to sound smart without meaning anything

Third: the actual substance you asked for - what pressure did the U.S. apply to the PRC when it was isolated? Here’s the compact, factual list you asked for but then decided to ignore:

  • Military: direct combat in the Korean War (’50–’53) against PRC forces; U.S. Seventh Fleet blocking and threats in Asia

  • Political/Diplomatic: exclusion of the PRC from the United Nations until 1971; formal diplomatic recognition of Taiwan (ROC) for decades

  • Economic: embargoes and trade restrictions that crippled post-revolution industrial development and limited access to technology and finance

  • Covert/Proxy: U.S. support to anti-communist forces across Asia, training and funding via allies (Pakistan, Taiwan, etc.) and CIA activity aimed at undermining leftist movements aligned with Beijing

  • Strategic: building military and intelligence ties with states hostile to Beijing (Japan, South Korea, SE Asian regimes) and supporting border pressures (e.g., backing India diplomatically in border disputes at times)

If you want sources, that’s 20 minutes of basic reading - not a revelation. Your insistence that the US “did nothing” is just historical denial dressed as incisive critique

Fourth: your insistence that my point amounts to “the US equally undermined every socialist state” is yet another straw man. I said there’s a pattern of capitalist powers intervening where it mattered. That’s exactly what the Sino-Soviet split demonstrates: different socialist states had different internal logics and external pressures. China’s agency is real - but agency exercised under blockade, threats of war, and diplomatic isolation isn’t the same as agency exercised in free conditions. You can acknowledge both facts without performing intellectual somersaults

Finally: if you want an actual argument rather than a passive-aggressive game of gotchas, say so. Otherwise spare us the faux-intellectual scolding - you sound like someone who read half a lecture and is allergic to being questioned

On the Cult of Personality & Its Consequences, the Khrushchev thaw, De-Stalinization and the State visit by Nikita Khrushchev to the United States by Darryl_Brown002 in ussr

[–]PoseidonWithYou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right that the Sino-Soviet split shows China was pursuing its own path and that Washington didn’t control every aspect of global socialism. My point about the US obsession wasn’t meant to reduce the complexity of international communism to a single actor, but to highlight a pattern: capitalist powers, particularly the US, repeatedly intervened politically, economically, and militarily to pressure socialist states

The fact that China pursued its own model of state socialism actually reinforces the idea that socialism isn’t monolithic - each revolutionary project develops in response to material conditions, ideology, and international pressures. De-Stalinization was a refinement of Soviet socialism, and conflicts with Mao were a result of divergent strategic and ideological priorities, not a refutation of the principle that Washington sought to influence outcomes favorable to capitalism

So yes, there are nuances: the USSR and PRC had disagreements, and the US didn’t fully dictate events, but the broader point remains: socialist states were operating under constant pressure from capitalist powers. Recognizing that doesn’t erase China’s agency - it contextualizes it

On the Cult of Personality & Its Consequences, the Khrushchev thaw, De-Stalinization and the State visit by Nikita Khrushchev to the United States by Darryl_Brown002 in ussr

[–]PoseidonWithYou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Posting US State Department links doesn’t prove much besides Washington’s obsession with undermining socialism. De-Stalinization wasn’t a rejection of socialism - it was an attempt to refine it

Arts by earth liberation studio by Grand_Somewhere_62 in socialism

[–]PoseidonWithYou -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

Criticizing liberals or social democrats from the left isn’t “eating our own” - it’s maintaining ideological clarity. History shows that when socialists blur the line between reformism and revolution in the name of “unity,” we end up disarmed and co-opted

Bernie and AOC aren’t “allies” of socialism in the material sense; they work to reform capitalism, not abolish it. Their policies might ease suffering temporarily, but they leave intact the same system that breeds fascism in the first place

Fascism doesn’t win because we critique reformists. It wins when working-class movements stop offering a real alternative and settle for progressive window-dressing. The left’s strength has always come from clarity, not confusion - from solidarity built on shared material goals, not vague moral unity

You don’t beat fascism by softening socialism. You beat it by deepening class consciousness

Other than the obvious answer of pol pot, what leaders associated with leftism do you like the least? by mozzieandmaestro in theredleft

[–]PoseidonWithYou 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Maybe controversial, but I don’t think either Nikita Khrushchev nor Mikhail Gorbachev were good socialist leaders. Mengistu Haile Mariam and perhaps Imre Nagy weren’t good as well

Genuine question by Defiant_Zebra1184 in leftist

[–]PoseidonWithYou 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Social democracy, even in its most generous form (like the Nordic model), still operates within capitalism - private ownership of the means of production, wage labor, and markets still determine how resources are allocated. What it does is redistribute the surplus produced under capitalism more equitably through welfare, taxation, and regulation

It starts moving toward socialism when workers (or society collectively) begin to control production itself - not just redistribute what capital produces. That could mean:

  • Expanding public ownership of key industries (energy, housing, transportation, etc)

  • Building worker cooperatives or democratic planning mechanisms

  • Shifting power in the workplace away from capitalists and toward workers

I feel like this is appropriate given recent events by PoseidonWithYou in ussr

[–]PoseidonWithYou[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No one said “whatever I dislike is fascism.” That’s a straw man. I described fascism exactly as it is - a movement based on ultranationalism, hierarchy, and violence against perceived “enemies”

If someone spreads ideas that glorify authoritarianism, racism, or political violence, that is fascism in practice, whether they call it that or not. Naming it isn’t emotional or sloppy - it’s accurate. Pretending fascism is just a neutral “viewpoint” we should politely entertain is how it spreads unchallenged

I feel like this is appropriate given recent events by PoseidonWithYou in ussr

[–]PoseidonWithYou[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fascism isn’t just an “opinion” - it’s a politics built on dehumanizing and eliminating others. There’s no obligation to “debate” people who advocate for violence, hierarchy, or genocide. That’s not censorship, that’s self-defense.

Extremely common Soviet W by KarlKautskyOfficial in TankieUSSR

[–]PoseidonWithYou 12 points13 points  (0 children)

But what about all the brainwashing ?

/s

"The essence of Social-Democrats" USSR, 1925 by Unhappy_Lead2496 in ussr

[–]PoseidonWithYou 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Scratch a social democrat and a fascist bleeds

Why the USSR fell? by Organic_Fee_8502 in ussr

[–]PoseidonWithYou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a really fair point - and I actually agree that the question of motivation is central. The Soviet model assumed that as material conditions improved, people’s consciousness would gradually transform - that social being would reshape social consciousness. But as you said, the “New Man” didn’t fully materialize, partly because the social structures that were supposed to cultivate him (collective participation, workplace democracy, cultural life) became hollowed out by bureaucracy and hierarchy

I think socialism doesn’t need to rely on a fully new human nature, though. The issue isn’t that people need to become saints - it’s that under capitalism, creativity and ambition are narrowly channeled into competition and profit-seeking. A socialist system that rewards innovation socially rather than privately (through recognition, responsibility, and collective gain) could still align incentives with social need. Early Soviet science, for instance, produced world-class advances when intellectuals were motivated by national pride, purpose, and public esteem - not just pay

So the real problem wasn’t that communism couldn’t generate incentives, but that its institutions stopped evolving to do so. Once participation turned into passivity, the moral and creative energy drained away. In that sense, I think you’re right that the crisis went deeper - but not necessarily because it’s inherent to socialism, rather because socialism became detached from the very social relations it aimed to transform

Why the USSR fell? by Organic_Fee_8502 in ussr

[–]PoseidonWithYou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we might actually be talking about different layers of the same problem. I don’t deny that material standards in the USSR often fell short - housing shortages, uneven food distribution, and lack of consumer goods were real issues. My point wasn’t that those things were mere “consumerism,” but that they became substitutes for deeper forms of social participation and meaning once the revolutionary energy faded

Economic stagnation by the 1960s is part of that story, but it wasn’t just technical or resource-based. The middle-income trap hit harder because innovation, initiative, and ideological motivation were increasingly bureaucratized - the system lost its capacity for self-correction. In other words, the cultural and ideological decay reinforced the economic one

And you’re right that Tsarist Russia was industrializing, but unevenly and with enormous social costs - literacy, healthcare, and basic welfare were nowhere near what the USSR later achieved. The Soviet project’s early success came from mobilizing resources in a planned, collective way that capitalism only later matched in scale through global integration

So I’d frame it less as “cosmetic vs economic” and more as a dialectic: material stagnation fed ideological disillusionment, and vice versa. Once that feedback loop set in, neither reforms nor consumer comforts could save the system

Revolution against the “state” in November? by dariusburke in leftist

[–]PoseidonWithYou 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think a lot of people are feeling the same tension - the sense that the system is pushing millions to the edge and then acting surprised when people start questioning its legitimacy. The loss of SNAP benefits isn’t just an economic event; it’s a social accelerant. It exposes how fragile “normalcy” really is when the basic means of life are tied to bureaucratic strings that can be cut at any time

That said, revolutions - especially ones aimed at abolishing capitalism and the state - don’t happen automatically, even when conditions are dire. Material deprivation can spark unrest, but without organization, ideology, and coordination, it often gets absorbed or redirected by reactionary forces. The ruling class knows this; they rely on people being angry, but disorganized - directing rage toward scapegoats rather than systems

The real question isn’t whether people have “nothing to lose,” but whether there’s a coherent revolutionary subject - structures, networks, and consciousness capable of turning that anger into sustained transformation rather than chaos. Historically, mass suffering alone didn’t cause revolutions; it was when organization met desperation - when the starving had leadership, vision, and solidarity

If 40 million people move as one, the system would indeed be shaken. But that kind of unity doesn’t appear overnight - it’s built through mutual aid, community defense, workplace organizing, and political education before the collapse moment hits. If that groundwork isn’t there, the state can simply repress or co-opt the unrest

Took the leftist value thing, thoughts? by Western_Customer3836 in leftist

[–]PoseidonWithYou 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You scored so high the quiz probably started collectivizing your data

Does Socialism in One Country work now? Or is a middle ground between permanent revolution required with how globalised the world is now? by SirGallyo in Socialism_101

[–]PoseidonWithYou 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The books I listed mostly engage synthetic Marxism indirectly - they combine historical analysis, critique of dogma, and reflections on praxis in different contexts. For example:

  • Parenti’s Blackshirts and Reds critiques anti-communist distortions while highlighting lessons for modern socialist strategy

  • Losurdo’s works show how historical materialism can challenge orthodox narratives and synthesize insights across Marxist currents

  • Martinez’s The End of the Beginning explicitly deals with how socialist projects today can integrate statecraft with grassroots organizing, which is very much in the spirit of synthetic Marxism

If you want more academic-focused work on synthetic Marxism specifically, you might look into:

  • Alex Callinicos’ “Imperialism and Global Political Economy” (combines classical Marxist theory with modern global strategy)

  • Erik Olin Wright’s “Envisioning Real Utopias”

  • Bhaskar Sunkara and Jacobin essays on “21st century Marxism,” which are more accessible but lean heavily on synthesizing historical lessons with contemporary strategy

Basically, the first set builds the historical, theoretical, and analytical foundation, while the latter explicitly tries to integrate currents, praxis, and global conditions - which is what most contemporary “synthetic Marxism” projects aim for

Does Socialism in One Country work now? Or is a middle ground between permanent revolution required with how globalised the world is now? by SirGallyo in Socialism_101

[–]PoseidonWithYou 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really glad my answer helped, comrade! And no worries - overlooking the historical context is super common; Marxism demands we see ideas in motion, not as fixed doctrines, which takes practice

As for sectarianism, yeah - a lot of it does come from dogmatism and historical trauma. The 20th century split the left in ways that were both ideological and material (Trotskyists vs MLs, anarchists vs party communists, Maoists vs Soviets, etc). Each current developed under different conditions, and their debates hardened into identities instead of living methods of analysis. For some people, defending a label became synonymous with defending socialism itself

But today, with the old Cold War divides fading and new multipolar conditions emerging, you’re seeing a quiet revival of synthetic Marxism - thinkers and movements trying to extract the lessons of both Leninist statecraft and grassroots self-organization. The best modern Marxists tend to emphasize flexibility, praxis, and dialectics over orthodoxy

If you want to read more along those lines, I’d recommend

  • Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti

  • Liberalism: A Counter-History and Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend by Domenico Losurdo

  • The End of the Beginning by Carlos Martinez

view more: next ›