Okay, so I’ve got a couple of issues with your response. First of all, the referendum only polled 9 out of the 15 republics. The other six boycotted it since they were already pushing for independence. Moreover, within months, nearly every republic declared full independence. If they truly didn’t want to secede from the USSR, would they have declared independence?

Secondly, I don’t think nostalgia is a good gauge of what people want. Individuals have a tendency to romanticize the past especially during hard times. For example, many citizens of African countries revel in reminiscing about the colonial era due to economic hardships faced today. Is that what they truly want? Probably not. It is usually due to poor knowledge of colonial history that they have these sentiments.

Furthermore, I’m well aware that the US is a despicable country, and my increasing knowledge about its history only fuels my hatred of it, but you’re bordering on whataboutism if the standard for the most progressive movement of the 20th century is being “not as bad as the US” which is a pretty low bar.

Edit: You can’t compare the confederacy - a slave-owning rebellion fighting to preserve human bondage to the soviet republics - nations seeking independence from an authoritarian superstate. If you really want to compare the USSR with the US civil war, it would be better to compare it to the 13 colonies fighting for independence from the British crown.

Besides, you still didn’t address the core argument: If Soviet rule was truly beneficial, why did so many nations (at least 5) risk war and economic collapse to escape it?

You’re deflecting. If the USSR was truly a voluntary workers’ paradise, why did nearly all of its republics leave at the first opportunity? You’re avoiding that question by pointing to U.S. wrongdoing, but the reality is that Soviet republics didn’t just ‘entertain’ secession like Texas, they actively fought for it and succeeded.

Comparing minor secessionist sentiments in Texas to the complete collapse of a superstate is absurd.

The USSR’s republics didn’t just debate independence, they actually left. If it was just “internal politics,” why did every non-Russian republic take the first opportunity to break away?

The Texas/California comparison is a weak false equivalence. The USSR suppressed nationalist movements (read on the Hungarian Revolution), while the U.S. allows open political discourse.

I’d have to challenge that “the bad guys won the Cold War” rhetoric. If the USSR was as successful as your argument claims, why did so many Soviet republics seek independence?

Tankie = derogatory term for Marxist. It’s that easy

What’s lacklustre about DSA politics?

When you say socialism has to remain a mixed system of sorts, are you implying a social democracy? Or are you saying that socialism would remain a mixed system if the justice system is left intact and therefore should read Lenin to see how one could go about transforming institutions to better fit socialism?

It’s quite clear they’re sealioning

Oh come on. You know that’s not the argument they made…

Never thought I’d find myself quoting Marxist apologia, but read Blackshirts and Reds😪

Maybe stop asking leftists to swing to the right (which is what you mean by compromise, presumably) and make some concessions of your own towards the left for a change, then maybe we can talk about coalition building.

Obama did it and it was fine. You’re a closed-minded leftist. It’s fine. Your type is so prevalent, that’s why we’re never going to gain power.

Fwiw, I don’t disagree with your positions, but i think the core of leftism should remain working class issues (AOC and Bernie also identify with this stance) and liberals to some extent share that stance.

Damn… DSA is a big thing. Respect to you for getting your hands dirty with politics. I wish more realised that you don’t win over opponents by trying to be ideologically pure but by trying to accommodate multiple ideologies and finding common ground.

You’re attacking a strawman. Nobody is saying the left should “compromise with literal fascists.” What I’m saying is that coalition-building is necessary for power.

Yes, Democrats have serious problems. Yes, they enable capitalist exploitation and refuse to meaningfully challenge corporate power. Yes, they uphold the prison-industrial complex. But that doesn’t make them the same as fascists. Fascists want outright ethnostates, mass purges, dictatorship, and full corporate-state fusion.

When liberals are pushed into a binary choice between socialism and fascism, they historically do lean right. But that’s because leftists have failed and continuously fail to make socialism a viable option for them. Instead of winning them over, ultra-leftists alienate them with purity tests and outright hostility. And then, when the left remains weak and ineffective, they blame liberals for siding with the right. It’s self-sabotage.

So how about not purity-testing everyone and recognize that politics is about coalitions, not ideological perfection?

Don’t worry about it. You were pretty respectful compared to some others i conversed with

What can i say🤷

I guess so, if there were to be a socialist revolution right now, I’d probably be in support, but it doesn’t mean I’d think it was necessary. I’m a progressive and i don’t necessarily oppose radical overhaul, i just think reform is satisfactory.

Removed by mod

Marx 315

This stuff again about “true-left” and what not. Framing all liberals as part of the problem ignores the bigger picture. I agree that liberals have often been weak in confronting fascism, and some have even enabled it, but they’re not monolithic. Many liberal voters are just politically disengaged or confused about what’s happening. If you just write them off as enemies, you’re pushing them closer to reactionaries rather than pulling them toward the left. Anybody that opposes “right-wingism” is good enough of a leftist to me. The real question is how do we win them over instead of letting the right absorb them?

“progressive” liberals are people who are moved by injustice more than by defending private property.

I completely agree with your categorization of progressive liberals which is why i said the progressive movement doesn’t strike me as caring too much about private property. Except if it means more people gain rights like you said.