Yep, agreed! The electrification of global infrastructure is going to be massive going forward.

Unsurprising, and with no sign of stopping. It isn’t simply a matter of the US falling, but China is also rising in approval, and this gap is widening as the old imperialist world order is dying away and multilateralism is rising.

To be clear, the way the soviets treated the Nazis was entitely different from the way the US did. The soviets kept them under maximum security, paid them low wages, and kept them on the tightest leash possible. The US gave them high positions in government, sent many to countries like Canada and Argentina, and gave them leading roles in organizations like NATO.

The communists were never allies with the Nazis. A non-aggression pact is not an alliance. The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.

When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.

Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:

If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.

Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.

Churchill did not take the Nazis as a serious threat, and was horrified when FDR and Stalin made a joke about executing Nazis. Churchill starved millions to death in India in preventable ways, and had this to say about it:

I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.

Meanwhile, the soviet famine in the 1930s was the last major famine outside of wartime in the USSR, because collectivized farming achieved food security in a region where famine was common. As a consequence, life expectancy doubled:

The Nazis and soviets were never allies. A non-aggression pact is not an alliance, and the non-aggression pact between the soviets and the Nazis was unique among the other non-aggression pacts in that it was on the eve of war. The soviets knew war was coming, and so bought more time to prepare.

Not sure what including an example of the social fascism of the SPD at the end there is supposed to do for your point.

This implies the global south enjoyed imperialism before Trump. The global south should be far more against the US Empire in the top image.

You can expose the problems of fascist speech without legally protecting the right of fascists to spread disinformation and misinformation, which you’ve been arguing for. I don’t want to “hide” it, I want to eliminate it from public discourse and study it academically so as to prevent it from rising.

Sure, but considering this entire speech you’ve been talking about how you want to protect the rights of fascists to spew fascist bullshit, talking negatively about political correctness is almost assuredly about the modern usage. You can’t fault me for reading this as you yet again arguing for fascist speech to be protected.

The soviets saved the world from fascism, 4/5ths of Nazi deaths were on the Eastern Front. The US took advantage of its new privledged position after World War II to become the world hegemonic empire, which leads us to today. Before World War II, it was and still is to this day a genocidal settler colony.

“Political correctness” has often been a dogwhistle for censoring bigotry:

Political correctness (adjectivally “politically correct”; commonly abbreviated to P.C.) is a term used to describe language,[1][2][3] policies,[4] or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.[5][6][7] Since the late 1980s, the term has been used to describe a preference for inclusive language and avoidance of language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting to groups of people disadvantaged or discriminated against, particularly groups defined by ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. In public discourse and the media,[4][8][9] the term’s use is generally pejorative, with an implication that these policies are excessive or unwarranted.[10][11] It can also be humorous, or ironic in nature.

You’re referring to instead how political figures massage words.

Political correctness isn’t “hiding the truth,” you’re implying that racism, homophobia, etc. are “the truth.” You’re caping for fascism and bigotry.

Nah, revolution is the only way out of this mess. The DNC is a party of imperialists just like the GOP, neither are a path to progress.

If historical record sounds like the soviets were overwhelmingly better than the west, then that’s just your evaluation of the actual historical record. That’s what happened, it isn’t because soviets good and US bad, it’s from fundamental differences in how fascism is treated by communists vs. by liberals.

The communists were never allies with the Nazis. A non-aggression pact is not an alliance. The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.

When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.

Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:

If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.

Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.

I am being honest here, that’s why I can recognize that since fascism and liberalism are both built on capitalism, they are diametrically opposed to socialism and have more in common with each other than they do with socialism.

Purges were necessary, that doesn’t mean the executions were. Purges often meant simply expelling someone from the party or a prison sentence, not necessarily execution. What’s clear when studying the soviet union, though, is the sheer siege and subterfuge targetting them from right when they first began. We can understand why they did what they did, while also understanding that if they had better resources and political stability then the better option would have been imprisonment and potentially rehabilitation.

No problem! Don’t take my word for it though, that’s just my first impressions. I’m sure others have made it an intention to study.

The liberals only opposed fascism once it was clear that the Nazis were going to attack them as well. Fascists like Batista in Cuba were worked with to the very end, never once opposing them. As for the soviets, they never did collaborate with the Nazis.

What happened was the soviets spent an entire decade trying to form an anti-Nazi alliance, while the liberals were gleefully working with the Nazis. The soviets signed a non-aggression pact on the eve of war to buy time.

From what I can tell, it looks like the aim was to solidify collectivization of agriculture and prevent mass disruption at the end of the famine. The famine lasted until 1933, which puts this letter at the tail-end of the famine. What it looks like is an order to prevent mass disruption of farming in a time where every grain was precious, and the collective farms were beginning to produce more and more. Whether or not this is an example of mismanagement is certainly a valid question, but a smoking gun explaining an intention to starve Ukrainians it is not.

If you could find it, that would help! I’m unfamiliar with that specific letter. You could also ask over on Grad or Hexbear, their soviet history is much better than mine.

That’s one of those things that’s hard to quantify. I’ve seen people use that frame of argument before, but not in the last few years.

For clarity, greater than 100,000 people were for sure executed. The limit to the executions was surpassed, which is why it was stopped. Either way, they weren’t randomly grabbing people off the street and executing them like some kind of kill quota, they had investigated criminals, former Tsarists, and others guilty of crimes and treason. Again, on the eve of World War II, it was certainly necessary to investigate the party and the state, as it was absolutely infiltrated.

As for the famine in the 1930s, what do you mean by the “choice to starve all those people?” Once discovered that a famine was occuring, the soviets did what they could to prevent and alleviate it once it had started. The idea of an intentional famine is simply fringe among contemporary historians, same with claims of white genocide in South Africa. For example, serious bourgeois academic sources tend to say it was a failure of planning, rather than intentional and genocide. For instance, Mark Tauger wrote:

[data] indicate that the famine was real, the result of a failure of economic policy, of the ‘revolution from above,’ rather than of a ‘successful’ nationality policy against Ukrainians or other ethnic groups.

Tauger believes it was a failure of economic policy, not an intentional attack on ethnic Ukrainians. The 1930s famine was a combination of drought, flooding, and mismanagement. Further, the Kulaks, wealthy bourgeois farmers, magnified matters by killing their own crops in the midst of a famine rather than letting the Red Army collectivize them. The Politburo was also kept in the dark about how bad the famine was getting:

From: Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Fond 3, Record Series 40, File 80, Page 58.

Excerpt from the protocol number of the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks) “Regarding Measures to Prevent Failure to Sow in Ukraine, March 16th, 1932.

The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine.

Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee – J. STALIN

Letter to Joseph Stalin from Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine regarding the course and the perspectives of the sowing campaign in Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.

There are also isolated cases of starvation, and even whole villages [starving]; however, this is only the result of bungling on the local level, deviations [from the party line], especially in regard of kolkhozes. All rumours about “famine” in Ukraine must be unconditionally rejected. The crucial help that was provided for Ukraine will give us the opportunity to eradicate all such outbreaks [of starvation].

Letter from Joseph Stalin to Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.

Comrade Kosior!

You must read attached summaries. Judging by this information, it looks like the Soviet authority has ceased to exist in some areas of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Can this be true? Is the situation in villages in Ukraine this bad? Where are the operatives of the OGPU [Joint Main Political Directorate], what are they doing?

Could you verify this information and inform the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party about taken measures.

Sincerely, J. Stalin

Muggeridge and Jones reported on the famine. Völkischer Beobachter reported on it as intentional, and then spread the story around further. Why would the soviets try to starve their own people? It was because of the soviets and collectivization of agriculture that famine was ended, and that’s why outside of wartime the 1930s famine was the final famine in those regions, with life expectancies doubling.

Overall, trying to hold on to red scare historiography does absolutely nothing to help the cause of socialism. The soviet archives have provided a wealth of knowledge largely affirming the communist narrative, and debunking liberal and fascist narratives about existing socialism. If you consider yourself a communist, then you’ll inevitably run into people using the red scare against you too, so perpetuating their mythos just shoots your own movement in the foot.