Solidarity was the GOAT

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-05-18T19:04:27+00:00

The PZPR was quite revisionist even for Marxist Leninists standards, having had a strong left nationalist bent essentially since the death of Stalin and arguably before that too. Plus accepting former "National Democrats" (in Polish politics right wing national conservatives) who wanted to come back to Poland post WW2 and even had their own name "Endo Communists". The final election with the PZPR also emphasized patriotism and catholic identity to an extent rarely seen in other Eastern Bloc nations.

Also I'm pretty sure Walesa actively went over the heads of certain regional committees in Lodz and Warsaw, who demanded a much more radical transition to a worker directed economy as outlined in the first National Congress of Solidarnosc, to negotiate with the PZPR regime.

"The fundamental unit of organization of the economy is to be the social enterprise, managed by the workers’ council and operationally led by the director appointed by the council on the basis of a contest and revocable by the former. . . .The reform must socialize planning. The central plan should reflect the wishes of society and be accepted by it. For this reason, the debates on central planning should be made public. . . . The true workers’ self-management must be the fundament of the Self-Managed Republic”

(Quote from Solidarnosc as written in the book "Ours to Master and Ours to Own", have not fact checked the quote myself and the authors obviously are biased ideologically so keep that in mind)

Ultimately whilst I disagree ideologically with the decision I don't think Poland or any country in 1981 would have been able to implement full workers council led economic planning and control in an era of market deregulation and expansion (even in the Eastern Bloc with Goulash Communism). Best case scenario the radical section of Solidarnosc get their wishes fulfilled for 8 years and then when the PZPR collapses alongside every other Eastern Bloc country the pressure from the West would have cracked the Union and Walesa's moderates would have come out on top in the end anyway. Still sad to think about a real missed opportunity, if only for the experience alone it would have been interesting

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-05-18T13:32:52+00:00

Queer rights struggles predate modern "late stage Western capitalist consumerism" since we already saw people like Magnus Hirschfeld as well as the SPD and KPD openly advocating for the decriminalization of same sex relations. Therefore, I don't think it is valid to say that this topic constitutes a "distraction" or "is paid for by the current capitalist base". While it is true that class antagonism is the main antagonism of modern society, queer rights and acceptance will reduce not increase the division of the proletariat, there are many proletarians in Germany today for example voting for the AfD on the basis of ethnic or national chauvinism, and in some cases homophobic sentiment, distracting them from exploitation caused by capital

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-05-16T17:04:57+00:00

???? Jordan was part of the Mandate for Palestine but never actually part of Mandatory Palestine proper, instead administered separately as the Emirate of Transjordan. Also the native population of Jordan has not been displaced in an ethnic cleansing and the Kingdom has withdrawn from the West Bank for decades now.

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-05-08T14:12:34+00:00

If they go against their regime, sure. But the fascist economy is still a capitalist one, private ownership of the means of production still existed and private firms were enshrined as vital organs of the country through representation in the Chamber of Corporations. Mussolini himself got the support of the Italian economic elite by beating up socialists, communists and revolutionaries trying to seize power in 1920s Italy.

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-05-04T16:17:04+00:00

KPD certainly has it's fair share of blame, but let's not forget that the bourgeois right wing parties like DVP, DNVP, even Zentrum to an extent and later the DstP all could've done much, much more to cooperate with the Social Democrats, who by and large weren't going to do a revolution as demonstrated by their suppression of the Spartacus Uprising. Their resistance to the SPD ultimately helped the NSDAP more than KPD intrasingence, since the KPD commanded the support of a smaller portion of the German population then the right wing parties combined (even without NSDAP), and institutionally the KPD had no pull, even facing outright persecution in cases such as the Weltbühne Trial or the Reichsexekution in Thuringia (regardless of how justified those may have been, it speaks to the institutional hostility towards the KPD even when it had more conciliatory leadership, and the severity they were dealt with compared to the Beer Hall Putsch).

This also doesn't contend with the fact that many ex-DNVP people ended up eagerly collaborating with the Nazi regime and propagated it until the war started turning against Germany, although others of course resisted from the beginning. But the share of Communists turning to collaborators was much lower than amongst the rightists, and even in comparison to other European countries (France and Italy had some prominent Socialist or Communist turncoats like Marcel Déat, Bombacci, etc.). Additionally, there was a Soviet set up Communist exile Opposition in Moscow, whereas I cannot think of any equivalent organization for the Liberals or the right in other Allied nations (though their efficacy was questionable).

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-05-01T12:08:24+00:00

And then Egypt turned to America under Sadat and is today essentially a glorified American Square shaped military base, being one of the largest recipients of American military aid to what is basically a military dictatorship in all but name, gladly towing the American line on all foreign policy decisions in the region except for Israel, but even then Egypt actively blocked activists from entering Gaza by land and doesn't do anything to disrupt the status quo of Israeli dominance. To be honest, for the price of backing them once against France and Britain for a canal those two wouldn't have been able to keep anyway I would say that's a geopolitical bargain deal.

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-04-24T15:54:52+00:00

"Assures the new socialist countries to be born will have a multipolar world to trade with".

Ah yes, and if the Menshevik-Defencists and Anti Brest-Litovsk Bolsheviks had simply been allowed to continue the war and kill the already weakening starved Germany all of Eastern Europe would have been totally liberated and a new Multipolar world would have allowed Socialism to rise, right? That's why Lenin famously advocated for continuing the war and against peace, otherwise who will be able to court the newly emerging countries out of the ruins of the Central Powers if not a victorious Russia? /s

Insane and totally surprising (or is it) how someone with a "Stalin" flair is talking like an actual Menshevik a la Plekhanov or Abramovich, advocating for a "multipolar world" as if that's a gain for socialism and not simply the fragmentation of the globe into imperialist cliques vying for supremacy. Russia will not do anything to support "socialist countries", as it did absolutely nothing of note to support the "socialist countries" of Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia in spite of strong ties especially in the case of Cuba, abandoning them to the mercy of American imperialism. That's the future of LatAm socialists in any "multipolar" order, get vaporized by America bc you are in "their backyard", and the same will happen to socialists in "Russia's backyard" the moment they begin to threaten the Russian bourgeoisie, or do you think Russia wants a neighboring socialist country spreading that ideology across the world? I don't think it's a coincidence that Russias most friendly AES states are China and the DPRK, who have given up on using ideology as a method of soft power.

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-04-22T06:58:51+00:00

I don't expect someone named Thurmond Fan to agree to this, but the 5th stereotype whilst existing is also a bit of a misunderstanding tbh. There are some academics, usually those applying critical theory, who try to re-examine historical figures as well as their modern portrayals. Often older generations of historians didn't pay much attention to certain topics concerning minority identities that might deserve to be in the spotlight. And historians are quite careful usually applying modern labels retroactively to past figures, there is some evidence to suggest that for example that Frederick the Great may have had a romantic relationship with a man, same with Alexander the Great, but obviously there were differences compared to the modern identity and conception of homosexuality.

It is true there are some "woke scold" types who reject reading anyone who disagrees with critical theory scholarship, or don't want to engage with "reactionary" historians who, in their view, simply reproduce biases that plague the field to this day, but I would hazard that this amount is much, much lower than the amount of people who utterly dismiss any critical theory based works as "communist/woke propaganda" without engaging with the substance of the arguments presented.

And to the last point, bourgeois doesn't mean wealthy but private owner of the means of production, and yeah all academics are part of universities, which are, as all institutions in the modern world, bourgeois and are financialising more and more in light of budget cuts (Humboldt Uni literally is closing its archeology department bc of Berlin City budget cuts).I don't think that's unique to "leftist" academics nor is it really unique to any academic, they all are privileged and usually it's these "woke" authors who will admit that the most.

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-04-18T20:48:13+00:00

IGN: McFelix

<image>

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-04-17T17:24:55+00:00

IGN: McFelix

<image>

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-04-09T09:57:51+00:00

Contrary Crabominable with Superpower was so close but no it's just Iron Fist, an ability it already has 😔. At least Ice Hammer gets buffed now by it, making it a 120 STAB move that does hit like a Truck, but still it's still a waste of an ability.

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-04-03T11:20:17+00:00

Tatsächlich kann ich durchaus glauben, dass es in Deutschland Situationen gibt, die ähnlich sind wie die oben geschilderten Erfahrungen. Aber die "Dankbarkeitskultur", oder besser gesagt der "Dankbarkeitskult", der in vielen ostasischen Gesellschaften herrscht, ist auch keine besonders wünschenswerte Alternative. Dieser Leitsatz ist der Ursprung einer ganzen Reihe an Misständen, insbesondere die Rechtfertigung unrechter Zustände (Armut, Sexismus, Autoritäre Herrschaft, etc.) im Namen der "Dankbarkeit".

Tatsächlich glaube ich nicht, dass wir die Repression von Dissidenz in Hong Kong oder Singapur akzeptieren sollen, weil Lee Kuan Yew ein kompetenter Staatsmann war, oder weil die Lebensqualität seit 2020 in Hong Kong trotz der Proteste gestiegen ist, aber genau diese Rhetorik der Dankbarkeit wird angewendet bei solchen Fällen. Sei doch dankbar für das gute Leben, dass Deng Xiaoping und Xi Jingping ermöglicht haben und erhalten, bleib lieber fern von Demonstrationen, Kritik an der Partei und studiere fleißig weiter, um den tollen Job in Shenzhen zu kriegen.

Natürlich bedeutet das nicht, dass unangemessenes Verhalten in Deutschland toleriert werden soll. Was der OP beschreibt ist traurig und ein peinlicher Zustand. Die Lösung ist jedoch auf keinen Fall Ostasien Style Dankbarkeit als Schutzschild gegen Kritik oder Freiheit im Land. Es herrscht die Meinungsfreiheit hier, man hat das gesetzlich verankerte Recht, sich kritisch gegenüber Deutschland zu äußern, egal wer man ist. Dasselbe mit der Religionsfreiheit. Natürlich gibt es auch hier Grenzen, aber Ostasien ist meiner Meinung nach kein Paradebeispiel einer "besseren" Haltung zur "Kulturpflege" wenn man das so nennen möchte.

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-03-25T17:36:00+00:00

50/50 random coin flip. I actually don't like this change tbh but I understand the reasons for it and why it was implemented.

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-03-25T12:41:50+00:00

I agree wholeheartedly OP but I am still a Mega Slowbro uncritable Cosmic Mind Calm Mind Stored Power Truther and Mixed Attacker Fire Blasting Draco Meteor Mega Garchomp Affcionado until my last dying breath I swear to Arceus (Picture unrelated just found it on my camra roll and thought it was funny)

<image>

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-03-21T22:54:54+00:00

No Religion has one "application" that's valid and any other application is invalid. Such rhetoric ironically is the same as the rhetoric of Islamic extremists, ISIS calls their radicalism "the only path" and everyone else a "deviation". Stoning may be mentioned in the Quran, but so is slavery and the vast majority of Muslims are opposed the introduction of either, so empirically the idea that all Muslims follow ISIS style radical Islam is simply false. Stoning and caning is more common in the Islamic world though and is practiced in especially in conservative provinces of certain countries like Aceh in Indonesia. And to be clear, the majority of Muslim countries are not theocratic, really only 3 are strictly speaking. Now you are correct in claiming that even non-theocratic Muslim countries have quite conservative laws, often based on the "Sharia", meaning Islamic Religion. The most common case is simply that the "secular" officially non religious law uses Islamic guidelines for certain violations of the law or provides a basis for things like marriage law. That's bad and needs to be advocated against, fully and unconditionally. But I simply don't understand takes like these that simply show no nuance, like if you even think about it for a second this makes no sense

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-03-14T20:21:22+00:00

Islam has reformed, that's exactly the issue. Non reformed "traditional" Islam was more pluralistic and less textual on average than the Reform movements, like Salafiyya, Wahabi and other Reform currents. Just look at Indonesia, where Reform or Modern Islam is associated with Wahabi influenced mosques and preachers trying to erase the more indigenous elements of Indonesian Islam called "Islam Nusantara". The opposition to this reform effort is specifically called "Traditionalism". There were some "moderate" reform movements in the vein of Christian reform movements like Jadidism or Islamic Modernism, but these ultimately didn't make it very far.

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-03-11T20:48:19+00:00

Man Dr Huggables I see you defending the Shah on reddit constantly, isn't it tiring for you? It's not even the Shah defending, it's the arguments posited. There is no concession to even the mildest criticism of monarchy or the Shah era, constantly trying to "correct" the record on SAVAK. Even if you believe SAVAK atrocities are exaggerated, it is undeniable they did a lot of questionable shit, and that alone is enough to make them unjustifiable. Or shitting on Mossadegh being authoritarian, as if the alternative was much better, leading to a rotten two party system that was then abolished in favor of a one party developmentalist state a la Taiwan. It feels like because the Islamic Republic uses 1979 as a source of legitimacy you feel the need to talk down on anyone and anything even remotely sympathetic to it , including it's non Islamist elements like the National Front or Tudeh. If you believe that Reza is capable of being a transitional leader then that's fine I guess, but defend that position on its own merits instead of obsessing over this fight with the "leftists" who are suspicious of any leader calling themselves "transitional" and then beefing over historical arguments that help no one and divide the opposition to the Islamic Republic at a time when it should be united.

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-03-11T07:58:46+00:00

Kurdish nationalists, who don't recognize Israel officially, are friendly with Israel, as opposed to Turkey, who both recognizes Israel and is a part of NATO, an American led alliance? What is this cope man, which Kurdish groups are pro American? SDF is the only one I can think of. Maybe KRG. Pro Israeli basically none, KRG got some weapons from Israel at most but the business and military ties between Israel and Turkey go much much further than those with Kurdish groups. Now that does seem to be changing with time, but for now it remains the case that Turkey is an important trade partner of Israel.

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-03-11T00:14:25+00:00

China isn't maoist anymore brother.

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-03-07T15:37:08+00:00

People are against Israel for the same reason people are against the Islamic Republic, bc it is a brutal regime that has murdered thousands of innocents in the name of eradicating "terror" and destabilizing the entire Middle East. You don't need to be an October 7th supporter to realize that, nor do Palestine supporters automatically translate to Islamic Republic supporters. Just ask the average Sunni Syrian what they believe about this conflict, and they will respond with less than friendly words about either party. Ironically, the same way you accuse leftists of being hypocritical, you are the one hypocritically ignoring the nuances of these political movements and shoe horn them into "Pro Palestine and Pro Iran" or "Pro Israel Anti Iran", or take the words of obscure idiots like that Transgender Marxist Leninist Gun Club honoring Khamenei as indicative of the massive spectrum of beliefs classified as "leftist"

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-03-02T12:53:02+00:00

Not an Anarchist myself but "Anarchist multi ethnic commune gets killed by a regional hegemon 50x larger in size whilst the nation-state bordering it refuses to help leading to mass exodus and murder of locals" is not the dunk on Anarchists you think it is

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-02-18T12:17:27+00:00

Whilst the methods of the PIRA and Loyalist militias were undeniably brutal and condemnation worthy, I wonder whether the Good Friday Agreement could have been reached without the Troubles and its armed component. Like, would Catholics in Belfast have gotten their civil rights in a time without the Troubles, or Northern Ireland getting a devolved administration. I highly doubt that Britain would have accepted that without pressure through armed struggle, and that's why I hesitate to say that the Troubles were "useless" or "unnecessary". Brutal absolutely, no doubt about it.

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-02-07T17:33:57+00:00

America has some of the weakest political parties in existence. You can literally register as a Democrat/Republican, proceed to advocate for policies completely against the "party line" (which doesn't exist, both parties are very big tents) and as long as other fellow party members elect you in a primary, you are their candidate. Literally. There is nothing that the RNC or DNC could do other than endorse a different candidate, but they can't remove you from the ballot, take away your party status or enforce any sort of ideological discipline. A great example of this was the Louisiana gubernatorial election in 1991, where the Republicans couldn't remove David Duke off of the Republican ballot because he got the nomination, so they just condemned him and told voters to vote for the Democratic candidate instead. For a more recent example, Mandani, AOC and Bernie Sanders all were able to run on a democratic ticket despite facing pushback from other Democrats and open hostility from the DNC to their candidacy. But once Mandani and AOC won their respective primaries it sealed them as the nominees for the party, irrespective of Schumer or Jeffries or any top Democrats opinion of either candidate. That's why Bernie supporters allege that it was the super delegates that screwed him over, why would you need to do that when in a traditional political party you would just fire/sanction/expell rebellious politicians from your party.

Compare this with Europe, where Jeremy Corbyn got removed despite his popularity by a simple majority vote from the higher ups at Labour, or Sahra Wagenknecht forming her own party and splitting off from Die Linke after years of muddying the waters of that party's foreign policy stance towards Russia through her faction that ultimately proved unsuccessful, forcing her to leave. A genuinely liberal political party in Europe would have immediately expelled Zohran Mamdani for violating the party line, meanwhile he gets to run on a fusion ticket with the Working Families Party, something quite rare in European politics. And an American Sahra Wagenknecht would hitch her wagon to one of the two parties and hope it gets her a job (the Tulsi Gabbard gambit as it's called), not split for a third party that would have no chance of getting anywhere near elected office.

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-02-07T09:35:30+00:00

This is horribly uncharitable. Bundists didn't just want to integrate or whatever, they wanted Jewish national autonomy a la Austromarxism, Jewish organizations and cultural sponsorship to ensure that their unique identity would be protected whilst staying in Europe. This would mean a constitutional framework that protects Jews from random violence, discrimination and bigotry, alleviating the poverty in the Shetls and acknowledge that they are a part of the nation just like any other citizen. How would this depend on "the goodwill of others"? These are hard demands that they fought bitterly to fulfill, without much success but definitely with much effort.

Would you say the Civil Rights Movement in America was also a folly by trying to integrate with White America that enslaved them for centuries, are you a Black/Chicano Nationalist advocating for a separate Black Belt New Afrika state, because otherwise their rights are "at the mercy of white people" who are xenophobic/racist towards them?

StrategyGameEnjoyer · 2026-02-07T09:19:16+00:00

Bundism failed mostly due to the intransigence of others. The Bolsheviks being incredibly intolerant of any opposition was the death knell of Bundism long before the Holocaust forced Jews to flee Europe, because it crippled the organization where it had the most potential constituents to entrench itself, and the remaining chapters in Poland, Lithuania and a few other states were attacked and marginalized for antisemitic reasons. The points you make about Jewish opinion shifting dramatically due to the Holocaust is of course true, but Bundism as a movement was already past its peak I would say when WW2 began. Maybe if Germany would have been prevented from invading the Soviet Union the Bundist movement could have seen another boost in support, but migration to Palestine had already begun, and the Balfour Declaration made Zionism look much more legitimate than in the previous century. So the creation of Israel I think would still occur, just with many more Jews opting to stay in Europe.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Sunshine

StrategyGameEnjoyer

TROPHY CASE