He is a white midwestern liberal American that is an active member of the US airforce.
I don't mean to get "third worldist" or "adventurist," and maybe I am just out of my mind right now, but he gets the wall for sure.
CommieGabredabok
joined 2 years ago
I love that quote, never seen it before.
My father and I were actually arguing for over two and a half hours straight. As you can expect, with him lazily going through narratives from the NED, Amnesty International, "human nature," and "authoritarianism." All the while blaming Russians for Amerika's racism, praising the democratic establishment, and defending the first gulf war. We hung up after he conceded on the gulf war.
I don't think their is a single family member of mine (other than like, my cousin) that doesn't deserve the wall.
I really like balls
"I did not have sexual... relations ... with that woman." ?? I honestly have no frickin clue.
Their position is almost similar to the social democracies. Many Nordic countries were under the threat of revolution during the time of the USSR, so the ruling class(es) set up concessions to appease and prevent a full-out revolution by the working classes.
Cuba and Vietnam are still being run by people's parties, but they are appeasing the national bourgeoisie and international bourgeoisie for economic development in productive forces, consumer goods, not being harassed by neoliberalism as much, etc. I am under the impression that most of the "capitalism" allowed is petit bourgeois style -- there is capital owned and worked by the same people. The important thing, however, is that the government is actually democratic centralist or whatever...
true dat. Trot is definitely not an ultra left, and you are correct on his opportunism fluctuating on whatever would oppose Stalin -- to the point of supporting terrorism
Also centrist, not too far left ( 
) and not too far right ( 
) , just in the moderate centre ( 
)
"I grew up in a liberal (in the American sense) family, and I identify now as a socialist, though a lot of the liberalism I grew up in has stuck with me"
to
"The GOP is directly inspired by the homophobic attitudes in both countries [Russia and China]. Have you been living under a rock?"
in the course of a few hours. 
"ummm actually Americans are homophobic because of foreigners sweety, and I care about LGBTQ+ rights more than you"
Oh yeah, lol. I absolutely lost it when the lemmy-er said that "the GOP is homophobic because China and Russia"
"here is why it is China's fault for Amerika being rascist"
Sources: LE FUCKIN ECONOMIST -- "journal that speaks for British billionaires." It's just more anti-China absurd nonsense. AT LEAST TAKE A LOOK AT MY BAIDU LINK WHICH IS LITERALLY WRITTEN BY A PERSON LIVING IN CHINA. It summarizes things nicely, and you could just translate it.
do some more digging than just wiki.
the sources that wiki links for its claims are: " #37Archive from Resource Information Center Washington D.C in 1998. Their claim of punishment for sodomy and homosexual relationships being 5 years of hard labor was States News Service 28 May 1991; The San Francisco Chronicle 18 Oct. 1992. I found the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper article, but it was paywalled, so I will have to see if my local library has it, or if I can get access to it.
Then the book "Hidden from history: reclaiming the gay and lesbian past" from pages 347-364 "Russia's gay literature and culture :the impact of the October revolution" by Simon Karlinsky -- gay scholar of Russian literature at Berkley. He often contends that the "Marxist Leninist ideology is at odds with homosexuality." Why does he contend that? Good question. He says the ideology goes against homosexuality. Which is weird, because he isn't arguing about real world socialism, but the ideology, which is synthesized from many socialist authors/works/theories but isn't inheritly anti-homosexual
The actual wiki states " there were several high-profile arrests of Russian men accused of being pederasts. In 1933, 130 men "were accused of being 'pederasts' β adult males who have sex with boys. Since no records of men having sex with boys at that time are available, it is possible this term was used broadly and crudely to label homosexuality"
And I am getting a 404 to the 43rd resource
The book "Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia: The Regulation of Sexual and Gender Dissent" by Dan Healy is referenced a lot. He actually is pro lenin, (and trotsky?), but very anti-Stalin, and uses a lot of primary sources/narratives about sexuality in the USSR.
" "In the first criminal code they composed after the revolution (1922), the Bolsheviks decriminalized sodomy. They did so because they were intent on secularizing and medicalizing the language of sexual crime. Old Testament concepts like "sodomy," "fornication," and "feminine honor" were purged from the law. In their place came a modernized, gender-neutral language to describe a sexual revolution. Henceforth, the sexual inviolability of all young persons was to be protected by the state, and the maximum self-determination was offered to both adult men and women: freedom to marry and divorce without having to explain why, freedom to engage in harmless consensual sexual relations without the interference of a moralizing higher authority. Homosexual relations were not explicitly welcomed by the Bolsheviks and raised to an equal status with heterosexuality. Yet they were regarded in principle as no great vice. The majority of Bolsheviks perhaps subscribed to the view that homosexuality was a medical condition, probably (if they read the popular sex advice tracts that they sponsored) a hormonal anomaly, and perhaps one day science would be able to control or even eradicate it. In the meantime, the legal persecution of homosexuals found in Britain and Germany was seen as irrational, reactionary, and bourgeois."
Daniel D Hailey
and from the wiki ITSELF!!
"Soviet legislation does not recognise so-called crimes against morality. Our laws proceed from the principle of protection of society and therefore countenance punishment only in those instances when juveniles and minors are the objects of homosexual interest (emphasis mine, because that is literally what I was fucking saying)"
βSereisky, Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1930, p. 593
DO YOU NOT READ? Even from le ant-commie wiki. 5 short paragraphs are all for "Stalin era"
and again, this is in THE FUCKING 1930s. THE BASTION OF "LIBERAL DEMOCRACY" IN AMERIKKKA IS LYNCHING BLACK PEOPLE
Also, the thing about Cuba is again, a myth. I am not going into that. But you can't use WIKI AS A SOURCE. They are a compilation of sources. Can give a good run-down on things. Generally bad for political stuff. And there is a lot more shit I wanna say but I have to go to work very soon.
ALSO YOUR FUCKING NONSENSE ABOUT THE DDR IS STRAIGHT-UP INCORRECT. LIKE ACTUALLY STUPID. LIKE THE MOST STUPID THING I HAVE HEARD ALL DAY. AFTER HEARING THAT, I AM ENDING THIS CONVERSATION.
I am going to touch le grass. not bother replying to Kautsky
π£π Unlimited hostages on the first world π₯ π₯