Initially was like “damn this some friggin foreign BS on Lemmy” “oh wait Canada that does make sense”

Apply that to every country on Earth though, thw whole world hates the US and has reasons for it, many more than Canada for the most part

You may disagree with the first statement on being an imperialist propaganda outlet, but the rest of information is relevant.

I don’t get your point of posting the article on the Shining Path, though

supplementary wikis

We have them, e.g. ProleWiki, but good luck trying to explain to the average western Wikipedia user that for certain geopolitical topics they might be worth checking out and contrasted with Wikipedia. My problem isn’t the lack of alternatives, my problem is the anticommunist and pro-western bias in Wikipedia, the most used encyclopedia, in geopolitically charged topics.

Tankies don’t think Wikipedia is the devil. You could call me a tankie from my political views, and I very much appreciate Wikipedia and use it on a daily basis. That is not to say it should be used uncritically and unaware of its biases.

Because of the way Wikipedia works, it requires sourcing claims with references, which is a good thing. The problem comes when you have an overwhelming majority of available references in one topic being heavily biased in one particular direction for whatever reason.

For example, when doing research on geopolitically charged topics, you may expect an intrinsic bias in the source availability. Say you go to China and create an open encyclopedia, Wikipedia style, and make an article about the Tiananmen Square events. You may expect that, if the encyclopedia is primarily edited by Chinese users using Chinese language sources, given the bias in the availability of said sources, the article will end up portraying the bias that the sources suffer from.

This is the criticism of tankies towards Wikipedia: in geopolitically charged topics, western sources are quick to unite. We saw it with the genocide in Palestine, where most media regardless of supposed ideological allegiance was reporting on the “both sides are bad” style at best, and outright Israeli propaganda at worst.

So, the point is not to hate on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is as good as an open encyclopedia edited by random people can get. The problem is that if you don’t specifically incorporate filters to compensate for the ideological bias present in the demographic cohort of editors (white, young males of English-speaking countries) and their sources, you will end up with a similar bias in your open encyclopedia. This is why us tankies say that Wikipedia isn’t really that reliable when it comes to, e.g., the eastern block or socialist history.

I’m saying each community bans something different. I agree with banning fascist discourse, I dont agree with banning communist discourse. .world thinks otherwise and that’s why it’s shit IMO.

You were responding to a comment quoting Anna Louise Strong on the USSR, that’s why I brought it up.

Communists are almost universally against UBI. As much as the right wing wants to portray us as lazy non working people, communists believe that everyone should contribute to society to the extent of their capabilities and should receive at least enough to have their needs covered. Or, as Marx put it, “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”.

UBI is a patch to capitalism. The idea behind it presupposes the existence of unemployment, which communists are fundamentally against. There is no need for unemployment, it’s a fairly new invention (no unemployment in most societies before the industrial revolution), and many nations overcame it (there was no unemployment in the USSR and AFAIK there’s none in Cuba either). Communists want to guarantee to everyone capable of working a decent job, and to people without the physical capabilities to work (due to heavy disabilities, age, or whatever reason) there would be specific aid.

You’re not doing materialist analysis of reality. If the USSR had been ruled by a selfish cadre of self-selected bureaucrats, it wouldn’t have continuously reduced wealth inequality to the point of being the most equal country on earth. It wouldn’t have universal healthcare, free education to the highest level, guaranteed affordable housing or guaranteed jobs. It wouldn’t have had walkable urban planning in the mikroraion system, affordable good quality public transit, affordable and subsidized basic foodstuffs, and it wouldn’t have been the case that by the 1960s there were more female engineers in the USSR than in the rest of the world combined.

For an example of the results of something closer to what you call a dictatorship, you can look at the social and economic results in Saudi Arabia, where the majority of workers are immigrants whose passports are taken away and work for misery wages in what effectively is an apartheid state.

it’s just another hierarchy wearing red paint

If that were the case, we would expect similar social and economic outcomes in both cases. Then, why did the USSR have the lowest recorded wealth and income inequality in history? Why did it have guaranteed employment, guaranteed housing at a cost of 3% of the average income, universal free healthcare and free education to the highest level? Why did it have walkable and public transit-oriented urban planning with services accessible by foot (look up the word “mikroraion” on Wikipedia)? Why could unions remove factory managers if they so decided, and why was there a newspaper to each workplace in which workers could write their complaints and their ideas? Why were the highest-earning individuals university professors and artists and not political bureaucrats?

Fascist apologia here gets banned, in .world you have people openly saying that Palestinians deserve to be genocided and you guys don’t give a shit

Chinese citizens are, by all polls, much happier with their government and feel more represented by it than westerners. Being able to choose every 4 years the colour of the party applying austerity policy isn’t democracy. Germany ignored a referendum in Berlin to establish rent caps because an old fart with a wig said it was “un institutional”. The EU forced Greece to act against the state-wide referendum to revise sovereign debt. China is much more of a democracy than western countries.

Which of the several things I mentioned while paraphrasing the video titles that you can literally look up yourself?

Propagating feel-goodism about climate change while taking money from the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation and saying that eventually climate change will be solved by technology, whitewashing carbon capture technologies and overselling their potential, taking money from Templeton Foundation when making videos about consciousness, using the “Israel fighting Hamas” narrative in a video regarding wars…

After the evidence I’ve shown you, calling it “invading Poland together with the Nazis” is honestly just lying. Ignoring that the territories returned were Ukrainian, Lithuanian and Belarusian for the overwhelming part is simply twisting history. It’s not “innocent poles getting oppressed by soviets”, it’s Ukrainians, Belarusians and Lithuanians being saved from Nazi invasion by Soviets. Again, answer this one question: what was the alternative to Soviet occupation of Eastern “Poland”. Please answer that.

You’re dishonest by refusing to entertaining the idea that the Soviets, as stated by Churchill, Chamberlain and Roosevelt, were not “collabbing with the Nazis”, but instead simply buying time to prepare for war. Evidence of the Soviet antifascist intervention on the opposite corner of the continent in the Spanish Civil War, the Litvinov doctrine, the collective security policy, pursued, the fact that the lands “invaded” weren’t even Polish for the most part, the mutual defense agreement with Czechoslovakia that made them want to start a collective war against Nazis which France refused, or asking yourself what was the alternative to Soviet occupation of the territories of Eastern Poland, none of this is enough.

And it’s not enough because you’re dishonest with your approach, because your starting point is “USSR bad, how can I justify this”, instead of “let’s look at the facts and reach a conclusion”. It doesn’t matter to you that Ukrainians and Belarusians overwhelmingly wanted to remain in the Soviet Union, you’ll still call them “unfree” because USSR bad. It doesn’t matter that the USSR saved Europe from fascism at the horrible cost of 25mn deaths, USSR bad. It doesn’t matter that literally every country in Europe had mutual nonaggression pacts with the Nazis at some point, history begins in 1939 and ends in 1941 because USSR bad. Munich Agreements don’t matter, Polish invasion of Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania doesnt matter, France rejecting to honor the Munich agreements doesnt matter, Spanish civil war doesn’t matter. Nothing matters, except for a 2-year interval in which the USSR was not at war with the Nazis.

What a serious historical analysis. Good job.

Ok, I’ve read through your comment and I’m a bit disappointed. You’re ignoring most of what I said, and your entire point is “but Poland, but Poland and but Poland”.

Your timeline conveniently starts in 1939 and ends in 1941, and you made no mention whatsoever of the Litvinov doctrine I brought up which explicitly was “seeking a collective security agreement with France and England against Nazis” for the entire 30s. You just reject the Spanish civil war as a nothingburger as if it weren’t the first antifascist war in Europe. You also don’t mention the Munich Agreements and somehow disregard the fact that France and Poland signed them with Hitler.

It’s not surprising Poland didn’t want Soviet troops in their country

Maybe it’s because Poland participated actively in the Munich agreements and got part of Czech land? By your own logic, Poland made an unforgivable deal with Hitler when invading Czechoslovakia. No blame there? History starts in 1939?

These countries weren’t free until FIVE DECADES LATER when the Soviet Union fell

Poland never belonged to the Soviet Union after the war, so your point is moot regarding Poland. As for Belarus and Ukraine, they respectively voted 83% and 71% IN FAVOR OF REMAINING IN THE SOVIET UNION IN THE 1991 REFERENDUM. What the hell are you talking about being free? Belarusian and Ukrainian people OVERWHELMINGLY DEMOCRATICALLY DECIDED TO BELONG IN THE SOVIET UNION. Please, tell me, how were Ukraine and Belarus not free?! Catalonia, for reference, recently had an independence referendum in which 50% of the population voted to leave Spain and the promoter of the referendum is a political refugee in Brussels. Please tell me in which fucking way Ukraine or Belarus weren’t free in the Soviet Union when they were two of the highest “yes” voters in the referendum.

You never addressed the public speeches by the leaders of France, USA and England admitting to what I’m saying. You never addressed the alternative to Eastern “Poland” (i.e. Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuanian territories) knowing that they would otherwise be invaded by Hitler, you never addressed the MILLION SOLDIERS that the Soviets offered and France rejected on exchange for a mutual defense agreement.

You simply ignored all of my comment, went on with the “but Motherboard-Ribbedcock” ignoring the history of the 10 previous years of consistent Soviet antifascist geopolitical position, and claim that the poor “Poles” (i.e. ethnic Ukrainians, Jews, Belarusians and Lithuanians) whose territories were returned to the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian republics, were somehow oppressed Poles who somehow could have avoided Nazi genocide if it weren’t for Soviet intervention both in 1939 and in 1941.

I honestly expected a bit more of good faith from the exchange instead of doubling down on narrowing history to a skewed version of one treaty and ignoring the DEMOCRATIC WILL OF TENS OF MILLIONS OF VOTERS in the 1991 referendum by calling them “non-free” in the Soviet Union. So much for freedom.

Have you had time to read my other comment? I would appreciate some discussion if you have anything to say, I spent quite a while writing that

I’m gonna please ask you to actually read my comment and to be open to the historical evidence I bring (using Wikipedia as a source, hopefully not suspect of being tankie-biased), because I believe there is a great mistake in the way contemporary western nations interpret history of WW2 and the interwar period. Thank you for actually making the effort, I know it’s a long comment:

Should European countries have just sat on their ass and let Hitler do whatever he wanted?

They kinda did and that’s entirely my point: capitalist nations won’t do much to fight fascism. World War 2 wasn’t won by capitalist western-style democracies, it was communists, 80% of Nazi soldiers were defeated in the Eastern front!

They actually tried that, the Peace For Our Time declaration in 1938 made by England after Hitler took over large parts of Czechoslovakia

The only country who offered to start a collective offensive against the Nazis and to uphold the defense agreement with Czechoslovakia as an alternative to the Munich Betrayal was the USSR. From that Wikipedia article: “The Soviet Union announced its willingness to come to Czechoslovakia’s assistance, provided the Red Army would be able to cross Polish and Romanian territory; both countries refused.”

As a Spaniard leftist it’s so infuriating when the Soviet Union, the ONLY country in 1936 which actively fought fascism in Europe by sending weapons, tanks and aviation to my homeland in the other side of the continent in the Spanish civil war against fascism, is accused of appeasing the fascists. The Soviets weren’t dumb, they knew the danger and threat of Nazism and worked for the entire decade of the 1930s under the Litvinov Doctrine of Collective Security to enter mutual defense agreements with England, France and Poland, which all refused because they were convinced that the Nazis would honor their own stated purpose of invading the communists in the East. The Soviets went as far as to offer ONE MILLION troops to France (Archive link against paywall) together with tanks, artillery and aviation in 1939 in exchange for a mutual defense agreement, which the French didn’t agree to because of the stated reason. Please stop trying to rewrite history, the Soviets were BY FAR the most antifascist country in Europe.

The invasion of “Poland” is also severely misconstrued. The Soviets didn’t invade what we think of when we say Poland. They invaded overwhelmingly Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian lands that Poland had previously invaded in 1919. Poland in 1938, a year before the invasion:

“Polish” territories inavded by the USSR in 1939:

The Soviets invaded famously Polish cities such as Lviv (sixth most populous city in modern Ukraine), Pinsk (important city in western Belarus) and Vilnius (capital of freaking modern Lithuania). They only invaded a small chunk of what you’d consider Poland nowadays, and the rest of lands were actually liberated from Polish occupation and returned to the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian socialist republics. Hopefully you understand the importance of giving Ukrainians back their lands and sovereignty?

Additionally, the Soviets didn’t invade Poland together with the Nazis, they invaded a bit more than two weeks after the Nazi invasion, at a time when the Polish government had already exiled itself and there was no Polish administration. The meaning of this, is that all lands not occupied by Soviet troops, would have been occupied by Nazis. There was no alternative. The Soviet invasion effectively protected millions of Slavic peoples like Poles, Ukrainians and Belarusians from the stated aim of Nazis of genociding the Slavic peoples all the way to the Urals.

All in all, my conclusion is: the Soviets were fully aware of the dangers of Nazism and fought against it earlier than anyone (Spanish civil war), spent the entire 30s pushing for an anti-Nazi mutual defence agreement which was refused by France, England and Poland, tried to honour the existing mutual defense agreement with Czechoslovakia which France rejected and Poland didn’t allow (Romania neither but they were fascists so that’s a given), and offered to send a million troops to France’s border with Germany to destroy Nazism but weren’t allowed to do so. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a tool of postponing the war in a period in which the USSR, a very young country with only 10 years of industrialization behind it since the first 5-year plan in 1929, was growing at a 10% GDP per year rate and needed every moment it could get. I can and do criticise decisions such as the invasion of Finland, but ultimately even the western leaders at the time seem to generally agree with my interpretation:

“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)

“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.

"One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course” Neville Chamberlain House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact’s signing)

Again, thank you for reading so far. I’ll be glad to engage in constructive criticism.

Russia can barely win a war against the poorest country in Europe, it has no interest or capabilities of invading Western Europe in my opinion. Regardless of that, I can’t remember one single time in which European nations have armed themselves and used their armies for a good cause. World War 1, World War 2, colonialism in Africa, South and Central America and Asia come to mind, as well as the bombing of Libya and Yugoslavia, collaboration in Afghanistan or Iraq… Surely, this one time is the right one?

Entiendo muy bien tu posición, y hasta cierto punto la comparto. Si te gustan las estructuras horizontales, me leí un libro que se llama “People’s Republic of Walmart” hablando de las posibilidades de una economía planificada pero descentralizada y horizontal, me parece un concepto tremendo de cara al futuro, y siendo de América Latina seguro que también te interesa el proyecto Cybersyn de planificación computerizada de la economía que intentó llevar a cabo Allende antes de que le asesinasen los Estados Unidos y Pinochet. Mi problema principal con las regulaciones, impuestos a la riqueza y la distribución equitativa es que no he visto ejemplos históricos de países en los que se haya podido llevar eso a cabo sin que te den un golpe de estado fascista, por ejemplo una vez más el Chile de Allende.

Yup, pretty spot-on. Thank you for translation