Social Justice Warriors - Now With Less Feminism Sperging

[Pointless Pedant]

Agreed, which is why you have unironic Leninist assholes like Safir and other Russian internet users who are of a similar age range.

A lot of Russians who were born in the years that roughly correspond to the American Baby Boomers (1945-1964), Generation X (1965-1980), and Early Millennials (1981-1989) have a lot of misplaced nostalgia for the Soviet Union because they were largely isolated from the horrors and brutality of the Leninist and Stalinist years and only really know them through the lens of state-approved history books and rose-colored nostalgia glasses of the time before the chaos and economic turmoil of the Yeltsinist years in the 90's.

Anarchism in general is the short bus of political ideologies though, no matter what trappings you throw on top of it

The USSR wasn't that bad to live in after the death of Stalin, certainly compared to the 1990s chaos. The issue was that the economic foundations of the state were completely untenable, for various reasons (the inefficiency of planning led to growth of the informal sector which cut into the national tax base, the bloated military budget was unaffordable, and so on), so collapse was inevitable. From an ordinary citizen's perspective, though, the fiscal impossibility of keeping the system going wasn't apparent, so there were a lot of people who thought it could simply be revived. I'd compare this to how the ballooning US national debt is barely discussed at all, even on political sites like this. If a horrific sovereign debt crisis hits in the future, few will have seen in coming.

The key word here is were. The communist party is no longer relevant in Russia, and aside from boomers/generation X and a handful of younger tankies those ideas are now gone, aside from veneration of Stalin as a victor of WW2. I would say that boomers/generation X equally apply to the USSR, since boomers grew up in the post-WW2 Khrushchev era of growth while generation X grew up in the Brezhnev stagnation era. The experiences of early millennials having grown up in the 1990s are very different, though.

As a nod to your popular culture interests, I would say that a lot of the ghastly tankies who ruin historical and video gaming communities are Russian, but it's hard to tell them apart from their American and Western European counterparts.

Anarchism isn't worth serious political consideration since the chances of it taking power anywhere for long are next to zero. Communism does merit study, whatever you think of it, since it ruled much of the world for decades.

 

[AnOminous]

Well, duh, he always was mad about stupid crap.
Including the fact people ignored his attempt at making le epic parody of specific kind of fantasy and simply took it as one more genre entry.
I like his books, but he was hillariously dumb.

Probably his funniest piece of political lolcowery was an essay called "Starship Stormtroopers" which was an enraged diatribe against Heinlein for supposedly being a fascist.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

Probably his funniest piece of political lolcowery was an essay called "Starship Stormtroopers" which was an enraged diatribe against Heinlein for supposedly being a fascist.

As I recall it was a whole litany of authors he disliked, not just Heinlein. It was the 1970s equivalent of a Twitter rant.

 

[Syaoran Li]

The USSR wasn't that bad to live in after the death of Stalin, certainly compared to the 1990s chaos. The issue was that the economic foundations of the state were completely untenable, for various reasons (the inefficiency of planning led to growth of the informal sector which cut into the national tax base, the bloated military budget was unaffordable, and so on), so collapse was inevitable. From an ordinary citizen's perspective, though, the fiscal impossibility of keeping the system going wasn't apparent, so there were a lot of people who thought it could simply be revived. I'd compare this to how the ballooning US national debt is barely discussed at all, even on political sites like this. If a horrific sovereign debt crisis hits in the future, few will have seen in coming.

The key word here is were. The communist party is no longer relevant in Russia, and aside from boomers/generation X and a handful of younger tankies those ideas are now gone, aside from veneration of Stalin as a victor of WW2. I would say that boomers/generation X equally apply to the USSR, since boomers grew up in the post-WW2 Khrushchev era of growth while generation X grew up in the Brezhnev stagnation era. The experiences of early millennials having grown up in the 1990s are very different, though.

Anarchism isn't worth serious political consideration since the chances of it taking power anywhere for long are next to zero. Communism does merit study, whatever you think of it, since it ruled much of the world for decades.

Agreed, but Safir gets really autistic and starts throwing angry internet stickers like a maniac when anyone dares speak ill of Lenin and Marxism or uses the terms Baby Boomers and Generation X in reference to Russians (something about "the demographics are entirely different in Russia" or something) even though I specifically mentioned the use of Boomer and Gen X as a shorthand for what years they were born and raised in during the last time we had an argument over it.

The Bolshevik Revolution and its consequences were a disaster for the entire human race

As awful and hopelessly antiquated as the Tsarist government was, it was a hell of a lot better than what came after under Lenin and Stalin (who was just a more paranoid Lenin in terms of hard policy) which isn't really saying much.

The Tsarist government had to reform and liberalize if it wanted to survive, but it didn't reform properly in time so WWI fucked over Russia and led to the USSR.

There's a lot of undue and undeserved lionization of Lenin solely due to Stalin being worse than him, which being better than Stalin is a pretty damn low bar to clear. Most of Stalin's atrocities were him carrying out a lot of Lenin's long term goals and having both the will and infrastructures to do so.

Khruschev and Brezhnev were petty bureaucrats in a corrupt system but weren't really tyrants or zealot ideologues like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Trotsky were. Gorbachev was a genuinely well-meaning leader who tried to do his best with a fundamentally broken and dysfunctional system.

Probably his funniest piece of political lolcowery was an essay called "Starship Stormtroopers" which was an enraged diatribe against Heinlein for supposedly being a fascist.

The funniest part is that Heinlein wasn't really a fascist under any stretch of the imagination.

IIRC, he was pretty much a textbook classical liberal and Civic Nationalist and in his universe, civil service being a requirement for voting and holding office wasn't just limited to military service but military service was simply one of the easier and more common avenues for the lower classes.

The movie from the 90's kinda glossed that over and it was pretty much meant as a parody of the novel.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

Agreed, but Safir gets really autistic and starts throwing angry internet stickers like a maniac when anyone dares speak ill of Lenin and Marxism or uses the terms Baby Boomers and Generation X in reference to Russians (something about "the demographics are entirely different in Russia" or something) even though I specifically mentioned the use of Boomer and Gen X as a shorthand for what years they were born and raised in during the last time we had an argument over it.

The Bolshevik Revolution and its consequences were a disaster for the entire human race

As awful and hopelessly antiquated as the Tsarist government was, it was a hell of a lot better than what came after under Lenin and Stalin (who was just a more paranoid Lenin in terms of hard policy) which isn't really saying much.

The Tsarist government had to reform and liberalize if it wanted to survive, but it didn't reform properly in time so WWI fucked over Russia and led to the USSR.

There's a lot of undue and undeserved lionization of Lenin solely due to Stalin being worse than him, which being better than Stalin is a pretty damn low bar to clear. Most of Stalin's atrocities were him carrying out a lot of Lenin's long term goals and having both the will and infrastructures to do so.

Khruschev and Brezhnev were petty bureaucrats in a corrupt system but weren't really tyrants or zealot ideologues like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Trotsky were. Gorbachev was a genuinely well-meaning leader who tried to do his best with a fundamentally broken and dysfunctional system.



The funniest part is that Heinlein wasn't really a fascist under any stretch of the imagination.

IIRC, he was pretty much a textbook classical liberal and Civic Nationalist and in his universe, civil service being a requirement for voting and holding office wasn't just limited to military service but military service was simply one of the easier and more common avenues for the lower classes.

The movie from the 90's kinda glossed that over and it was pretty much meant as a parody of the novel.

WW1 is the only reason the Bolshevik revolution happened, but given how badly the Tsar handled the war it wasn't at all surprising. The absolute autocrat taking personal command of his troops who lacked sufficient ammunition due to Russia's limited industry was never going to end well. Russia was actually industrialising very quickly before the war, to the point where the Germans thought that they would be unbeatable by 1917, but at the stage they were they were unable to properly equip their forces and Nikolai's insistence on personally controlling everything and not delegating power was a terrible flaw.

Brezhnev was definitely an ideologue and started claiming that real socialism was already being implemented after Khrushchev had foolishly promised communism in 10 years and it didn't happen. His focus on heavy and military industry over consumer goods contributed to the post-1973 oil crisis stagnation problems that persisted until the collapse. Both Khrushchev and Brezhnev engaged in harsh acts of repression against their subject states (Hungary 1956 and Czechslovakia 196, but these weren't felt at home and both leaders were fairly popular at the time.

 

[AnOminous]

The funniest part is that Heinlein wasn't really a fascist under any stretch of the imagination.

IIRC, he was pretty much a textbook classical liberal and Civic Nationalist and in his universe, civil service being a requirement for voting and holding office wasn't just limited to military service but military service was simply one of the easier and more common avenues for the lower classes.

The movie from the 90's kinda glossed that over and it was pretty much meant as a parody of the novel.

A fascist wouldn't have written Stranger in a Strange Land. Among other things, ST featured a society in which racial and sexual discrimination were more or less eliminated. People also weren't forced into the military and retained all their other civil rights. Only the vote and some jobs where it was somehow relevant were limited to military veterans. The book was unabashedly pro-military, but calling a guy fascist who served in the Navy while the country was literally under threat from actual, real Fascists is idiotic and reductionist.

 

[Syaoran Li]

WW1 is the only reason the Bolshevik revolution happened, but given how badly the Tsar handled the war it wasn't at all surprising. The absolute autocrat taking personal command of his troops who lacked sufficient ammunition due to Russia's limited industry was never going to end well. Russia was actually industrialising very quickly before the war, to the point where the Germans thought that they would be unbeatable by 1917, but at the stage they were they were unable to properly equip their forces and Nikolai's insistence on personally controlling everything and not delegating power was a terrible flaw.

Brezhnev was definitely an ideologue and started claiming that real socialism was already being implemented after Khrushchev had foolishly promised communism in 10 years and it didn't happen. His focus on heavy and military industry over consumer goods contributed to the post-1973 oil crisis stagnation problems that persisted until the collapse. Both Khrushchev and Brezhnev engaged in harsh acts of repression against their subject states (Hungary 1956 and Czechslovakia 196, but these weren't felt at home and both leaders were fairly popular at the time.

Brezhnev and Khrushchev were both communist ideologues but weren't quite on the level of Lenin, Stalin, or Trotsky in terms of their insanity and tyranny and like you said, most of their repression was directed at Soviet client states like Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the 50's and 60's or Afghanistan towards the end of Brezhnev's regime in the late 70's.

I'm mainly speaking from the perspective of how the two are depicted in retrospect.

In the West, Khrushchev is depicted as a "communist true believer but more of a petty bureaucrat who didn't have the balls to be a bona fide dictator like Stalin", assuming he gets discussed or depicted at all beyond his role in the Cuban Missile Crisis or him sperging out at the UN and banging on a desk with a shoe.

As you pointed out, Russians are more likely to have nostalgia for those two rulers since the worst of their brutal repression was directed far away from them while Leninist and Stalinist atrocities were just outside their own front doors.

Usually, Brezhnev isn't even mentioned at all in the West outside of historical or academic circles and is more of a "literally who?" for Americans, seen as a generic seat warmer between Khrushchev and Gorbachev

(Nevermind that there were Premiers in between Brezhnev and Gorbachev, but Andropov and Chernenko's terms were fairly short)

 

[Pointless Pedant]

Brezhnev and Khrushchev were both communist ideologues but weren't quite on the level of Lenin, Stalin, or Trotsky in terms of their insanity and tyranny and like you said, most of their repression was directed at Soviet client states like Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the 50's and 60's or Afghanistan towards the end of Brezhnev's regime in the late 70's.

I'm mainly speaking from the perspective of how the two are depicted in retrospect.

In the West, Khrushchev is depicted as a "communist true believer but more of a petty bureaucrat who didn't have the balls to be a bona fide dictator like Stalin", assuming he gets discussed or depicted at all beyond his role in the Cuban Missile Crisis or him sperging out at the UN and banging on a desk with a shoe.

As you pointed out, Russians are more likely to have nostalgia for those two rulers since the worst of their brutal repression was directed far away from them while Leninist and Stalinist atrocities were just outside their own front doors.

Usually, Brezhnev isn't even mentioned at all in the West outside of historical or academic circles and is more of a "literally who?" for Americans, seen as a generic seat warmer between Khrushchev and Gorbachev

(Nevermind that there were Premiers in between Brezhnev and Gorbachev, but Andropov and Chernenko's terms were fairly short)

Ignoring Andropov/Chernenko is understandable since their tenures were so short that they barely did anything, but ignoring Brezhnev is ignoring the whole reason for the USSR's decline. We covered him in GCSE history at school as part of the cold war unit, though not at all in detail (we didn't do the economic history because that's too complex for teenagers).

 

[Corn Flakes]

Not that I'm complaining (and I'm definitely not) but these past two pages feel like they belong in Deep Thoughts. I don't think I have enough reacts to hand out.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Ignoring Andropov/Chernenko is understandable since their tenures were so short that they barely did anything, but ignoring Brezhnev is ignoring the whole reason for the USSR's decline. We covered him in GCSE history at school as part of the cold war unit, though not at all in detail (we didn't do the economic history because that's too complex for teenagers).

American history courses rarely focus on the Soviet Union unless it's in the context of the Cold War or the two World Wars. As such, most of the focus is on Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, and Gorbachev. Unless you take specific college courses on Russian history or the Cold War, a lot gets glossed over.

At most, you might see the more ideological left-leaning teachers spout the usual revisionist tripe of "Lenin and Trotsky good, Stalin bad" and the more conservative older teachers will emphasize the hardships of the civilians in USSR even in its prime a little more, but even then Brezhnev gets glossed over and at best, he gets mentioned once or twice whenever talking about Nixon's Detente or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the late 70's, but that's about it.

Most of the knowledge I have of Brezhnev, I learned on my own because I'm a bit of a history dork who likes to read about random historical subjects for fun. While Brezhnev played a major role in the Cold War, he tends to get glossed over because he wasn't as actively involved with America as Stalin, Khrushchev, and Gorbachev were.

More accurately, he doesn't have any "icon" moments in American history courses like Lenin did with the October Revolution, Stalin did with WWII and Korea, or Khrushchev did with the Cuban Missile Crisis and the early years of the Vietnam War.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

American history courses rarely focus on the Soviet Union unless it's in the context of the Cold War or the two World Wars. As such, most of the focus is on Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, and Gorbachev. Unless you take specific college courses on Russian history or the Cold War, a lot gets glossed over.

At most, you might see the more ideological left-leaning teachers spout the usual revisionist tripe of "Lenin and Trotsky good, Stalin bad" and the more conservative older teachers will emphasize the hardships of the civilians in USSR even in its prime a little more, but even then Brezhnev gets glossed over and at best, he gets mentioned once or twice whenever talking about Nixon's Detente or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the late 70's, but that's about it.

Most of the knowledge I have of Brezhnev, I learned on my own because I'm a bit of a history dork who likes to read about random historical subjects for fun. While Brezhnev played a major role in the Cold War, he tends to get glossed over because he wasn't as actively involved with America as Stalin, Khrushchev, and Gorbachev were.

More accurately, he doesn't have any "icon" moments in American history courses like Lenin did with the October Revolution, Stalin did with WWII and Korea, or Khrushchev did with the Cuban Missile Crisis and the early years of the Vietnam War.

Brezhnev was in office for most of Vietnam and his refusal to tolerate multiple socialism deepened the split with China to the point where Nixon could reconcile them and turn them against the USSR, which proved decisive for limiting Soviet influence in Asia. Crushing Czechoslovakia also made Albania quit the Pact and join the Chinese bloc instead, but Albania isn't really significant enough to be covered in broad history courses other than Hoxha's unusual personality. Ironically, despite his hardline stances on foreign policy, he was willing to entertain detente up until the Afghanistan crisis got out of hand in the late 1970s; he thought Hafizullah Amin was pursuing communism too aggressively in a conservative country and killed him after invading the country, installing Babrak Kamal in his place. Detente is the only reason my profile picture exists; Stafford and Leonov would never have met in space otherwise.

Leonov famously took some bullets for Brezhnev during the attempt on his life in 1969, and Brezhnev, to his credit, apologised and said they were meant for him instead.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Brezhnev was in office for most of Vietnam and his refusal to tolerate multiple socialism deepened the split with China to the point where Nixon could reconcile them and turn them against the USSR, which proved decisive for limiting Soviet influence in Asia. Crushing Czechoslovakia also made Albania quit the Pact and join the Chinese bloc instead, but Albania isn't really significant enough to be covered in broad history courses other than Hoxha's unusual personality. Ironically, despite his hardline stances on foreign policy, he was willing to entertain detente up until the Afghanistan crisis got out of hand in the late 1970s; he thought Hafizullah Amin was pursuing communism too aggressively in a conservative country and killed him after invading the country, installing Babrak Kamal in his place. Detente is the only reason my profile picture exists; Stafford and Leonov would never have met in space otherwise.

I'm aware of the Soviet policies during the Vietnam War and the detente and Brezhnev's role in worsening the Sino-Soviet split, but the problem is that the American school system doesn't really mention him too much and heavily gloss over the Sino-Soviet split when they talk about Nixon's negotiations with Maoist China. They near-exclusively focus on the American and Chinese elements within it and at the very most, will chalk up the Sino-Soviet split being a mere border dispute when the truth was a lot more complex and multi-faceted.

TLDR - The American education system sucks, especially in regards to history

 

[Pointless Pedant]

I'm aware of the Soviet policies during the Vietnam War and the detente and Brezhnev's role in worsening the Sino-Soviet split, but the problem is that the American school system doesn't really mention him too much and heavily gloss over the Sino-Soviet split when they talk about Nixon's negotiations with Maoist China. They near-exclusively focus on the American and Chinese elements within it and at the very most, will chalk up the Sino-Soviet split being a mere border dispute when the truth was a lot more complex and multi-faceted.

TLDR - The American education system sucks, especially in regards to history

I can't really speak for how British schooling is now, since I left in 2016, which is before PC madness really exploded (the meltdown over Brexit being the impetus). Back then there wasn't really anything very far left in schooling, just teaching that segregation and slavery were bad in history lessons. Troonery was not mentioned whatsoever. It may have been different in central London, though. Even today I would imagine that most of the country is still relatively normal and the real insanity is only happening in certain urban areas. I go back and forth between small cities of 100,000 or so and I barely see anything of the sort people complain about on here, though central London and Bristol had BLM rioting earlier this year.

 

[Syaoran Li]

I can't really speak for how British schooling is now, since I left in 2016, which is before PC madness really exploded (the meltdown over Brexit being the impetus). Back then there wasn't really anything very far left in schooling, just teaching that segregation and slavery were bad in history lessons. Troonery was not mentioned whatsoever. It may have been different in central London, though. Even today I would imagine that most of the country is still relatively normal and the real insanity is only happening in certain urban areas. I go back and forth between small cities of 100,000 or so and I barely see anything of the sort people complain about on here, though central London and Bristol had BLM rioting earlier this year.

I graduated high school in 2011 and I went to high school in a fairly generic suburban area (I went to grade school in a rural backwoods area but my family moved the summer I turned 14)

We didn't have any real woke nonsense either since it was all right before "Current Year". Any ideological bent, conservative or leftist, would come from individual teachers.

The biggest flaw in the American education system when I was a student was just how everything was so glossed over and surface level outside of math and reading/grammar thanks to the unique Standardized Testing system we have in the United States.

 

[AnOminous]

(Nevermind that there were Premiers in between Brezhnev and Gorbachev, but Andropov and Chernenko's terms were fairly short)

I haven't even thought of the latter two since the novelty song "ABCs of Dead Russian Leaders" on the Dr. Demento show in the '80s.

 

[Capsaicin Addict]

Black Farmers Have Been Robbed of Land. A New Bill Would Give Them a “Quantum Leap” Toward Justice.​

https://archive.vn/df4Tv (fuck motherjones, archive only)
Excerpt:

Summary and bill attached as PDFs to this post.

God fucking damnit. Didn't we just go through this with the Pigford subsidies?

Jesus Christ. More money, floating around to be grabbed.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

I haven't even thought of the latter two since the novelty song "ABCs of Dead Russian Leaders" on the Dr. Demento show in the '80s.

Andropov had a significant career as ambassador to Hungary during the uprising and then KGB chief for 15 years from 1967 to 1982 before taking office. Chernenko was almost dead when he took office and is most known for boycotting the 1984 Olympics.

 

[Jarolleon]

Here's my list compilation of things from the top of my head by right wingers or would be considered "Right-wing" by today's catty Eloi:
-Starship Troopers
Creator was yuge pro military and his book was pretty much a manifesto on how war keeps us together; and this book pretty much invented the concept of space marines. The movie was made by someone who didn't even like the book and didn't bother reading it, but somehow in his ignorance still madea great movie that makes humans look fucking awesome.

-Conan the Barbarian
Robert E Howard's hardboiled Texas roots and his love for history (especially his fascination with the barbarians of history) had him created one of the greatest archetypes of sword-and-sandal fantasy. The wanderlust broad Cimmerian's tales of high adventure are really engaging with it's themes of the decadence of "civilized" society really makes one want to go on an adventure themselves.

-Lord of the Rings
Tolkien is not what one would traditionally consider "right-wing", as he was more of a traditionalist that just wanted a quiet rustic life, away from the hustle and bustle of the cities.
Tolkien's works are heavily based on ancient myth and legend of the ancient Europeans and are written to reflect that, which can be an actual deterrent to most readers and is a source of criticsm from modern readers, from Moorcock(ras seen his essay: Epic Pooh) to modern soyboys who compare orcs to blacks, think everything is an allegory and complain about things being too "White"

-The Works of HP Lovecraft
View attachment 1746593

-Rudyard Kipling
Mostly known for his works like "The Jungle Book", he was known for making some works like "White Man's Burden", but he also made alot of poetry, just look at this one, it wouldn't fly today

-Richard Wagner
Created a lot of great orchestral music in his day, but is now controversial for being an anti-Semite or some dumb shit, it's gotten to the point to where I have heard that some radio stations put trigger warnings about him being an anti-Semite before playing his music despite his music being mostly lyric less and deals more with Germanic myth.


I also wanted to include Mythology and ancient stories in general, but I believe those can go without telling since the moral compass of our ancestors would be eldritch to today's spoiled children of the west.
None of them would understand the ire of Achilles without thinking he's just some homo since the idea of friendship is alien to them, They would flinch at Odysseus's toxic masculinity of not letting courtiers cuck him from his wife, Indra's hatred of the swarthy mortals to them would be like meeting eye-to-eye with Cthulu, they'd protest Sun Wu-Kong's punishment of his magic circlet as inhumane and animal cruelty despite him being essentially an immortal monkey god, and so on.
I'm not good at writing so I'll just end it here.

"Robert E. Howard supported women voting, therefore he was one of us"-Them, probably.

You have to look pretty hard to find a right-wing creator in the past 30 years who isn't a John Ringo or someone else who's main appeal is "I'm not pozzed" . You know that shit where the BBC pretends Britain was always as diverse as modern-day London? That's what this guy is doing with the politics of creatives.

 

[Oh Long Johnson]

A fascist wouldn't have written Stranger in a Strange Land. Among other things, ST featured a society in which racial and sexual discrimination were more or less eliminated. People also weren't forced into the military and retained all their other civil rights. Only the vote and some jobs where it was somehow relevant were limited to military veterans. The book was unabashedly pro-military, but calling a guy fascist who served in the Navy while the country was literally under threat from actual, real Fascists is idiotic and reductionist.

The Man Who Sold the Moon would have been enough to get Moorcock to label him as Great Satan Fascist Pig Fucker.

 

[toilet_rainbow]

Sometimes I forget just how misinformed or just plain ignorant that wannabe commies are about communism. The Chinese are big moviegoers but isn't that a more recent thing? They definitely weren't watching a lot of stuff during the Mao era because they were all too busy trying not to starve to death. Also pretty sure that the Chinese government isn't paying workers to sit on their asses to watch flicks for hours at a time, multiple days a week/month like how people were doing with MoviePass.