Hot Takes Discussion

[Umeria]

ah yes anti-imperialism such as

- military and covert action against sovereign countries because they decided to go against you (iraq, afghanistan, iran, n. vietnam, all of latin america)
- supporting far-right dictators to sustain your own power in the region (iraq again, south vietnam, all of latin america, saudi arabia)
- that whole "killing about 100 million native americans because they're not white and we like land" thing
- seceding from another country because you can't expand more*
- setting up not one but arguably two systems to ensure global hegemony (NATO primarily but the UN is arguably another example, especially the early UN)
- cutting off aid to sovereign countries because they don't like you anymore (sudan, most of central america)
- blockading a sovereign country and letting their population starve because they don't like you anymore (cuba)
*this wasn't the only reason but it was arguably one of the largest

truly an anti-imperialist paragon

All of this was done in opposition to imperialist efforts of the soviet union. Except for the native Americans which was a domestic issue.

I see several things on that list that happened (or are currently happening!) well after the USSR fell.

As for the Native Americans, that's only a domestic issue if you assume that Native American land instantly becomes property of the US as soon as they claim it. Which would make quite a few other wars "domestic issues" as well.

[Deblar]

ah yes anti-imperialism such as

- military and covert action against sovereign countries because they decided to go against you (iraq, afghanistan, iran, n. vietnam, all of latin america)
- supporting far-right dictators to sustain your own power in the region (iraq again, south vietnam, all of latin america, saudi arabia)
- that whole "killing about 100 million native americans because they're not white and we like land" thing
- seceding from another country because you can't expand more*
- setting up not one but arguably two systems to ensure global hegemony (NATO primarily but the UN is arguably another example, especially the early UN)
- cutting off aid to sovereign countries because they don't like you anymore (sudan, most of central america)
- blockading a sovereign country and letting their population starve because they don't like you anymore (cuba)
*this wasn't the only reason but it was arguably one of the largest

truly an anti-imperialist paragon

All of this was done in opposition to imperialist efforts of the soviet union. Except for the native Americans which was a domestic issue.

That just makes them hypocrites

[Port Caverton]

All of this was done in opposition to imperialist efforts of the soviet union. Except for the native Americans which was a domestic issue.

That just makes them hypocrites

Hypocrisy in geopolitics is a great

[HISPIDA]

i'm not going to disagree on a fundamental level but i do think lenin and stalin were overall positives

did they make horrible mistakes? yes, war communism was a failure, the NEP was a failure, and stalin had that whole "let's kill soviet democracy" thing and also semi-accidentally* increased the death toll of the 1932-1933 famine, but they did stop that whole "let's have a good jewish genocide every once in a while" thing the tsars did and without the soviet industrialization programs (which weren't even stalin's idea but probably wouldn't have happened if the USSR never existed in the first place) i doubt the nazis would've either lost or been defeated in a timely manner (think the war stretching on another half decade)

i do think lenin and stalin are looked back on better as theorists than examples in perfect governance like a lot of hyper-leftists make them out to be but by no means were they agents of satan that were total negatives for the world like reactionaries of all stripes make them out to be

*he was a dick and deliberately killed a good amount of people but by no means do i think the famine itself or even most of the deaths were directly his fault

How the fuck do you accidentally commit genocide through forced famine? It was literally solely Stalin and his advisors' faults!

the direct cause of the soviet 1932-1933 famine was a drought between 1931 and 1932 that led to overplanting in the 1932 season and literally would've happened under any ukrainian regime

it also... wasn't genocide. it was a famine and millions died, sure, but a bunch of people dying doesn't make a genocide. genocide is intentional attempts to erase culture and the population of a nation, not just a lot of people dying because of administrative failures, poor harvesting equipment, and natural famine. russian pogroms against jews, the american-indian wars, the holocaust; those are examples of genocide. the holodomor was a natural famine exacerbated by the moscow government and agricultural equipment just sucking balls under every russian government post-industrial revolution.

i'll admit that stalin and the soviet government did play a part in deliberate deaths against political enemies as well as fucked up in both not providing enough government aid and continuing to export grain but by no means was the holodomor even remotely entirely stalin's fault. like i said the famine began due to drought; it was exacerbated by russian and ukrainian industrialization and fudged reports from corrupt local governments, which, surprise surprise, isn't solely a soviet thing.

[Ethel mermania]

ah yes anti-imperialism such as

- military and covert action against sovereign countries because they decided to go against you (iraq, afghanistan, iran, n. vietnam, all of latin america)
- supporting far-right dictators to sustain your own power in the region (iraq again, south vietnam, all of latin america, saudi arabia)
- that whole "killing about 100 million native americans because they're not white and we like land" thing
- seceding from another country because you can't expand more*
- setting up not one but arguably two systems to ensure global hegemony (NATO primarily but the UN is arguably another example, especially the early UN)
- cutting off aid to sovereign countries because they don't like you anymore (sudan, most of central america)
- blockading a sovereign country and letting their population starve because they don't like you anymore (cuba)
*this wasn't the only reason but it was arguably one of the largest

truly an anti-imperialist paragon

All of this was done in opposition to imperialist efforts of the soviet union. Except for the native Americans which was a domestic issue.

Or the Mexicans.

CURSE YOU JAMES POLK

[Port Caverton]

Need for speed Most Wanted (2005) has less replayability than Payback

[Ethel mermania]

All of this was done in opposition to imperialist efforts of the soviet union. Except for the native Americans which was a domestic issue.

That just makes them hypocrites

Everyone is a hypocrite

[HISPIDA]

ah yes anti-imperialism such as

- military and covert action against sovereign countries because they decided to go against you (iraq, afghanistan, iran, n. vietnam, all of latin america)
- supporting far-right dictators to sustain your own power in the region (iraq again, south vietnam, all of latin america, saudi arabia)
- that whole "killing about 100 million native americans because they're not white and we like land" thing
- seceding from another country because you can't expand more*
- setting up not one but arguably two systems to ensure global hegemony (NATO primarily but the UN is arguably another example, especially the early UN)
- cutting off aid to sovereign countries because they don't like you anymore (sudan, most of central america)
- blockading a sovereign country and letting their population starve because they don't like you anymore (cuba)
*this wasn't the only reason but it was arguably one of the largest

truly an anti-imperialist paragon

All of this was done in opposition to imperialist efforts of the soviet union. Except for the native Americans which was a domestic issue.

iraq: invaded in 1989 to protect another country and secure oil; invaded again in 2003 for oil, support of iraq continued until 1989
afghanistan: invaded in 2001 as a response to 9/11
last american-indian war: 1924
american revolution: 1776
sudan aid ends: 2017
american support of saudi arabia: continuing today
NATO hegemony in europe: continuing today and explicitly founded to cut off the USSR
the cuban revolution: 1953 and initially an anti-batista movement that didn't align with the soviets until 1962 after the american embargo; embargo continues today
operation just cause: 1989 over a groundless casus belli to ensure the continued stability of the panama canal

[Niarj]

That just makes them hypocrites

Everyone is a hypocrite

The great virtue of the modern world

[HISPIDA]

Everyone is a hypocrite

The great virtue of the modern world

you either admit you're a hypocrite or wait long enough for someone to point out your hypocrisy

[Ethel mermania]

The great virtue of the modern world

you either admit you're a hypocrite or wait long enough for someone to point out your hypocrisy

Pretty much, yes

[Malaiya Union]

Invading a country to remove its evil government and liberalize its society works if done right.

Case in point: Germany and Japan.

[Umeria]

Invading a country to remove its evil government and liberalize its society works if done right.

Case in point: Germany and Japan.

We didn't invade Germany and Japan to remove their governments, we invaded them because they invaded us.

[Malaiya Union]

hot take: The collapse of the Soviet Union and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

This reminds me of what is apparently a hot take, though you wouldn't necessarily expect it to be: Lenin and Stalin were neither the monsters they're made out to be by capitalists and anarchists, nor the noble and infallible revolutionary leaders they're made out to be by communists, but rather ordinary flawed leaders whose successes were the result of good policy planning anyone could emulate, and whose failures resulted from failures to confront or overcome the contradictions inherent in Soviet society. For modern-day leftists, they are thus much more valuable as theorists and thinkers than as examples of socialist governance in practice.

(I do get that "Stalin did nothing wrong" is more of a meme than a serious take, but still.)

Not really a hot take except for a few: Communism in Russia has been objectively been a total disaster for humanity.

How it emerged is already problematic: the Russian Civil War, which killed 10 million, including due to the 1921-1923 famine, while unleashing such a great destruction that sets things up for even worse calamities. The prevention of the RCW is arguably already a good enough reason to send a time traveler to try kill Lenin and the gang before things become irreversible.

Another equally horrific impact of the RCW is that the winning Bolsheviks, whether they like it or not, are then forced to transform into a totalitarian one-party police state that unleashes the Red Terror to its opponents. Without the RCW, there will be no abominations like the Red Terror, Stalinism, Lysenkoism, genocide of the kulaks, and the farm collectivizations. Without the Bolsheviks there will not be an RCW, at least not on that scale.

Indeed the prime inherent evil of Soviet communism is not on its intent of malice against its own population (though there certainly are an abundance of those). It is in what you call the "contradictions in the Soviet society", or as I call it, "raw systemic stupidity". The deaths under Soviet communism is like the deaths under an insane suicidal apocalyptic cult that distributes poisoned Kool-Aid to its followers: not because the cult upper management are genocidally evil, but because the upper management actually believe in the their own nonsense. And believe they did, because the very structure of the Soviet system encourages idiotic central decision making based on a catastrophically flawed and unusable information system that completely ignores the reality at hand.

That Lenin, Stalin ignored these obvious failures like ostrich putting its head inside the sand and went on with their programme is primarily why they are evil. The result is famine, mass deaths, demographic decay, and long-term stagnation and inevitable collapse. While the Japanese and Americans are inventing semiconductors and the internet, the Soviets are standing in breadlines.

Then there were the fascists and Nazis, all of whom first rose primarily as a response to the triumph of Soviet communism and its resulting rise of communist movements everywhere. Without the Soviets there likely won't be the Nazis.

And lastly, there is the thing of the Soviets spreading communism everywhere. Without the Soviets, there likely won't be Maoist China, therefor no Great Leap Backwards and Cultural Revolution. There will be no Korean War, and Vietnam War: the US will be more than happy to see Ho Chi Minh as the leader of a united national Vietnam.

In fact without Soviet communism, the fate of the working class worldwide are likely going to be much better and with the Left being much bigger and stronger, since workers that unionizes will not be associated with the Evil Empire that is the Soviet Union, and will thus not be systematically targeted by American hegemony as Enemy No. 1. (Although, this might be a positive thing if you're on the right side of economics - Soviet and Maoist communism has been the greatest force that retarded labor movements worldwide, which is great if you think labor movements should be quashed in the name of economic growth).

Indeed perhaps the only """"positive"""" thing Communism did is this three:

1. It resulted in the rise of the Nazis, which was so comically evil, genocidal, and destructive it annihilated open European colonial imperialism and great power politics with it in a massive ball of flames and deaths and gas, and paved the way for the current European project of "peace though economic and cultural integration" and the American-style liberal world order.
2. Meanwhile the implementation of communism is also so comically evil that it resulted in democracies banding together and achieved massive progress (most importantly being Japan and Germany; without the Cold War, there is no prosperous democratic Japan and Germany).
3. It was such a massive and obvious failure that it has self-guaranteed itself to not be considered again by any important nation forever.

[State of Imperial Russia]

Invading a country to remove its evil government and liberalize its society works if done right.

Case in point: Germany and Japan.

We didn't invade Germany and Japan to remove their governments, we invaded them because they invaded us.

I assume your American, no? Last thing I checked; Germany never invaded you guys. They did invade Belarus though.

[Umeria]

We didn't invade Germany and Japan to remove their governments, we invaded them because they invaded us.

I assume your American, no? Last thing I checked; Germany never invaded you guys. They did invade Belarus though.

Right I meant "we" as in the Allies.

[State of Imperial Russia]

I assume your American, no? Last thing I checked; Germany never invaded you guys. They did invade Belarus though.

Right I meant "we" as in the Allies.

Alright. Just wanted to make sure.

[Haganham]

That doesn't mean it isn't imperialist, it just means they don't like other imperialist nations, which is actually imperialistic.

Imperialistic=/=imperialism key difference being that the united state's interest in other nations is an interest in their independence, not in a desire to rule over them and extract their resources; because, again, even if the United states wished to rule over, say, Korea, it can't. Doing so would require significantly more resources then could ever be extracted from the nation as a subject. As such the US is stuck simply preventing rivals who *could* conquer it from doing so, so as to retain access to Korean markets through trade. Thus, it is an obligate anti-imperialist.

[Kowani]

a smart thing trump did was, when confronted about the costs of his dumbfuck programs like the wall or the tax cuts, just lie and insist that they would pay for themselves

other really smart thing trump did-loudly and publicly take credit for everything
this is not just a trump thing, there is a reason "BUILT BY THE WPA UNDER PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT" is plastered all over half of america but he brought back a genuinely good tradition

[Ereria]

My hot take: For all the rhetoric coming from some individuals in Europe about being the master race, I believe europeans are the least genetically and culturally pleasing continent in the world. I just think if there is a master race at all, it isn't white people, and furthermore they are towards at the bottom of the pole. They only have a good mind for violence and have been able to use this to dominate other countries in the past and make themselves rich and educated, hence why they seem like more advanced than rest of the world. However, if every country was on equal footing education wise, I believe europe would have been left behind long ago.

[Alcala-Cordel]

That doesn't mean it isn't imperialist, it just means they don't like other imperialist nations, which is actually imperialistic.

not in a desire to rule over them and extract their resources;

The Middle East/nonexistent WMDs say hi

[Floofybit]

My hot take: For all the rhetoric coming from some individuals in Europe about being the master race, I believe europeans are the least genetically and culturally pleasing continent in the world. I just think if there is a master race at all, it isn't white people, and furthermore they are towards at the bottom of the pole. They only have a good mind for violence and have been able to use this to dominate other countries in the past and make themselves rich and educated, hence why they seem like more advanced than rest of the world. However, if every country was on equal footing education wise, I believe europe would have been left behind long ago.

I'm not gonna say anything about your hot take except that that is extremely racist.

[Nova Catania]

Need for speed Most Wanted (2005) has less replayability than Payback

Since I'm of the younger generation, I find the visuals and graphics disturbingly terrible in any pre-2010 NFS games. I don't see why they're considered masterpieces.

[Vikanias]

This reminds me of what is apparently a hot take, though you wouldn't necessarily expect it to be: Lenin and Stalin were neither the monsters they're made out to be by capitalists and anarchists, nor the noble and infallible revolutionary leaders they're made out to be by communists, but rather ordinary flawed leaders whose successes were the result of good policy planning anyone could emulate, and whose failures resulted from failures to confront or overcome the contradictions inherent in Soviet society. For modern-day leftists, they are thus much more valuable as theorists and thinkers than as examples of socialist governance in practice.

(I do get that "Stalin did nothing wrong" is more of a meme than a serious take, but still.)

i'm not going to disagree on a fundamental level but i do think lenin and stalin were overall positives

did they make horrible mistakes? yes, war communism was a failure, the NEP was a failure, and stalin had that whole "let's kill soviet democracy" thing and also semi-accidentally* increased the death toll of the 1932-1933 famine, but they did stop that whole "let's have a good jewish genocide every once in a while" thing the tsars did and without the soviet industrialization programs (which weren't even stalin's idea but probably wouldn't have happened if the USSR never existed in the first place) i doubt the nazis would've either lost or been defeated in a timely manner (think the war stretching on another half decade)

i do think lenin and stalin are looked back on better as theorists than examples in perfect governance like a lot of hyper-leftists make them out to be but by no means were they agents of satan that were total negatives for the world like reactionaries of all stripes make them out to be

*he was a dick and deliberately killed a good amount of people but by no means do i think the famine itself or even most of the deaths were directly his fault

Just because they weren’t directly his fault doesn’t make it any better, he ordered the Holodomor to begin in the first place because he felt Ukrainian cultural autonomy was a threat to his power. The great purge was also definitely Stalin’s fault. Deliberately ordering the murder the people who you somehow think are a threat to your power. Majority if not all of those killed in the purge didn’t even aspire to take out Stalin. Just because you didn’t kill them yourself and instead ordered doesn’t remove you from the blame. And a side effect the purge caused the Soviet military to suck ass with incompetent officers and generals because all the good ones were apparently a threat to his power, leading to the much smaller Finnish to cause massive Soviet casualties in the winter war (hint: don’t wear green in a pure white field) and Soviet failures at the start of Barbarossa. Now also indirectly the 28,000,000 Soviet casualties in WW2 because he murdered all his competent generals.

[Malaiya Union]

There is no socio-economic class more publicly utterly despicable and openly parasitic to society than car dealership owners.