• mienshao@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    124
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    18 hours ago

    I fucking love that he chose to call them stalinists. In addition to it being true, it send a fuck you to the alt-right and the alt-left (who love to talk up stalin as of late)

    • Doom@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Who in the alt left is talking about Stalin lol maybe some whackos online

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Stalin took the Russian state from an agricultural backwater to a Space Age superpower in a matter of twenty years.

        If he’d started out a Virginia plantation owner instead of a Georgian bank robber, capitalists would have loved him. He’d be bigger than Churchill.

        American liberals love (the whitewashed version of) FDR because they see the quasi-socialism of the mid-20th century as the morally correct path. Eastern Europeans - who came through two world wars and repeated genocides on every front - have a lot more of an appetite for Iron Fisted Dictator[Communist] after enduring generations of Iron Fisted Dictator[Monarchist]

        • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          But the way in which he did it was very costly. Stalin is comparable to Musk in that sense. In love with technology and factories, but too focussed on advancement no matter the human cost. Everything was about efficiency.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            Stalin is comparable to Musk in that sense.

            Christ. Musk is, if anything, more comparable to Henry Ford.

            Billionaire car magnet with whole municipal governments in his pocket who wrecked public transit and spread antisemitism all over Europe? That’s not the editor and chief at Pravda.

            If you were to put Stalin anywhere in contemporary US politics, I’d say he’s comparable to Shyam Sankar - the Palantir CTO who was recently granted the rank of Lt. Colonel in the US military. Or, perhaps, just straight up comparing him to Peter Thiel minus all the buggery.

            In love with technology and factories, but too focussed on advancement no matter the human cost. Everything was about efficiency.

            Silicon Valley has swarms of these guys. Most of them aren’t constantly pissing themselves from too much Ketamine.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 hours ago

        From someone who has gone to more than a few political protests and rallies in Boston:

        Every fucking time Socialist Alternative shows up, it’s fine until some edgelord dipshit unfurls the fucking huge Soviet flag with Stalin and Mao silk screened on it. It’s like they’re trying to alienate reasonable people as well as historically-informed people. I consider myself a staunch socialist. I also outright detest Stalin and Mao because they were fucking authoritarian despots who wrapped their regimes in “communism” banners.

        Sure, some of the systems at lower levels were socialistic, but at the end of the day, it was all in service to the cult of personality in charge of the whole gig. And yes, that’s what the US has devolved into (and arguably had done so quite a while ago, just not so overtly), but that doesn’t excuse Stalin or Mao, nor does it justify being an apologist for them.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          I also outright detest Stalin and Mao because they were fucking authoritarian despots

          You could easily say the same of Washington or Eisenhower or Churchill or DeGualle.

          Hell, Lincoln got got by a guy who was literally shouting “Sic Semper Tyrantus”.

          The thing that sets Stalin and Mao apart from the Francos and Mussolinis and Tojos and Chang Kai-Sheks and Churchills was their break from the old line aristocracy. The thing westerners hate more than anything was their overthrow of the local monarchies.

          That’s why you have folks weeping big crocodile tears over Anastasia and Puyi, while they whistle past the graveyard of the countless Chinese and Russian victims of Romanov/Qing Dynasty misrule.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Why is it always Mao or Stalin? Can’t they at least go with folks who shed the blood of fascists like Tito or Castro? They werent particularly good either but at least they were doing the best with their dealt decks. Mind you I fucking loathe elevating folks to positions of respect unless they were my ancestors or damned well earned it via death and glory.

        • solarvector@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          From that perspective, any thoughts on Ho Chi Minh?

          Of all the leaders good, bad, and, ugly over the last century, he doesn’t seem to be brought up as much by propaganda machines.

        • SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          12 hours ago

          Who, you know, MIGHT be real people but probably aren’t for the most part…

          I just assume any .ml account is a propaganda bot. Because even if they are real people… they are propaganda bots.

            • Klear@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 hours ago

              lemmy.ml was built by those people, sometimes it feels for the express purpose of spreading their bullshit.

            • squaresinger@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Yeah, that’s plausible.

              Lemmy.ml only has ~2100 monthly active users. I would guess that likely at least half of them are randos who just joined what they thought was the default instance.

              That leaves about 1000 or so (likely even less) active tankies. That’s not a lot of people. I’m pretty sure you could find more than that amount of tankies in pretty much every single metropolis worldwide.

                • squaresinger@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  Currently, Lemmy only has 46 000 monthly active accounts in total, so 1 000 is quite a significant share of that. Especially considering that these 1000 are very vocal.

                  Remember, this is not Reddit or Facebook with billions of active users. Lemmy in its entirety is smaller than some phpbb forums used to be.

                  I mean, ~3500 of these monthly active accounts are from lemmynsfw.com alone, and these are most likely double accounts for people who have accounts on a non-nsfw instance. And in general it’s quite likely the the amount of monthly active accounts is much larger than the number of actual monthly active users, considering that a significant portion of users will have more than one lemmy account and that there are some moderation bots and stuff like that around.

    • Kowowow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Aw I thought he called the sanatists but I think either would work

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        Modern Satanists are actually extremely progressive. The Satanic Temple makes a point of using legislation intended to promote Christianity to promote their own religious organization.

        It pisses off the reactionary religious zealots and shows them to be hypocrites, and there’s nothing legislators can do about it without blatantly giving preferential treatment to the “correct” religion.

        • squaresinger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          To be fair, the Satanic Temple isn’t exactly satanic per se. It’s more of a parody religion to point out the unfair law exceptions churches get. They are more anti-church (or maybe even anti-religion) than actually satanic.

          I’d be very surprised if a significant portion of members of the Satanic Temple actually seriously believe in the existence of satan.

          It’s about the same as e.g. the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.