I hate russia - the most popular newspaper in the country, Communist Truth, with the front page: Don’t think - give birth!

[noSuffering]

Today I saw at the store checkout the most popular newspaper in the country, Communist Truth, with the front page:

Don't think - give birth.

(and a photo of a happy family.)

Knowing this shit, I'm sure that they convince readers that "even if you live in poverty, you don't have enough money even for yourself - have as many children as possible, as early as possible, like everything will be fine later"

Don't be a communist brainless biomass - Think before you give birth! If you don't have enough money, don't give birth! I'm poor, I hate my life. I don't even have enough money for food, let alone clothes, shoes or housing. My life is absolute hell and daily torture of poverty. I hate my mother, who has no money and she vomited me into this hell of suffering from poverty. If you are born into poverty, then there is almost no chance of breaking out of it, in my entire life, there was not a single day that I did not regret that I did not commit suicide back in school (and yes - poverty is an almost guarantee of violence in the family and school). My pension is $140 a month, I hate my life and want to die.

Cycle of poverty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In economics, a cycle of poverty or poverty trap is caused by self-reinforcing mechanisms that cause poverty, once it exists, to persist unless there is outside intervention.

Families trapped in the cycle of poverty have few to no resources. There are many self-reinforcing disadvantages that make it virtually impossible for individuals to break the cycle.[3] This occurs when poor people do not have the resources necessary to escape poverty, such as financial capital, education, or connections. Impoverished individuals do not have access to economic and social resources as a result of their poverty. This lack may increase their poverty. This could mean that the poor remain poor throughout their lives.[2]
...

 

[Adûnâi]

Doesn't Russia have a non-existent birthrate anyway? Where to go lower from that?

Anyway, there has been no communism in Russia for 35 years now, so the point is kind of moot. I wouldn't have been incel under communism. There would have been no war either. It was the America-worshipping traitors who destroyed our Soviet Ukraine.

I'm not even Marxist, I'm more of a NazBol, but the USSR seems like the final bastion of old European values. Brezhnev was our last true king. Now, madness reigns.

 

[Rapière]

I wouldn't have been incel under communism.

Quote of the day.

 

[tiger b]

the USSR seems like the final bastion of old European values...

Really...

So the liquidation of the Kulaks, collectivisation, purges, gulags, KGB terror, intimidation of the educated and intellectuals, cronyism, inefficiency, corruption, industrial mismanagement, forced domination of neighboring countries, nuclear willywaving whilst creating economic weakness...a million miles away from what Lenin tried to achieve...and this is basic non-partisan history I'm talking here.

Exactly what 'old European values' was the USSR the 'final bastion' of? Imperialism?? I'm not sure any credible historian would even partially agree with that. Leonid Brezhnev was...what??? Seriously???

People voted in a comedian in the Ukraine for a reason, and if you can't at least recognise the grievances (I'm not even saying agree with them) without simply branding them 'traitors', then you're myopic as they come.

 

[noSuffering]

Really...

So the liquidation of the Kulaks, collectivisation, purges, gulags, KGB terror, intimidation of the educated and intellectuals, cronyism, inefficiency, corruption, industrial mismanagement, forced domination of neighboring countries, nuclear willywaving whilst creating economic weakness...a million miles away from what Lenin tried to achieve...and this is basic non-partisan history I'm talking here.

Exactly what 'old European values' was the USSR the 'final bastion' of? Imperialism?? I'm not sure any credible historian would even partially agree with that. Leonid Brezhnev was...what??? Seriously???

People voted in a comedian in the Ukraine for a reason, and if you can't at least recognise the grievances (I'm not even saying agree with them) without simply branding them 'traitors', then you're myopic as they come.

Communism is terror, totalitarianism, endless wars, repression, total surveillance and a police state, mass murder, punitive psychiatry, censorship, anti-liberalism and anti-intellectualism, shortages and poverty - everything as Lenin wanted and did. Lenin was a brainless and bloodthirsty monster who hated democracy and intellectualism and loved dictatorship, torture, mass murder and the police state. Like any communist. Today in russia the majority of the population hates the USA and loves the ussr. And russian troops are erecting monuments to lenin on temporarily occupied Ukrainian lands.

Fuck russia and the ussr, they're the same thing All communists, lovers of the ussr, let them go back to putin's ass. Who let them out of there?

 

[tiger b]

Calling Lenin brainless doesn't stack up, bloodthirsty is questionable depending on whether you believe his aims were justifiable (which you clearly do not), but given the benefit of being able to see 100 years into the future, it's probable he would have stayed in exile and attempted social rather than political revolution in Germany, for instance.

But your main point stands though.

 

[noSuffering]

.Lenin .., it's probable he would have stayed in exile and attempted social rather than political revolution in Germany, for instance.

Germany had its own lenin - hitler and acted the same way as lenin in russia. Socialism and national socialism, fascism and communism are one and the same, totalitarian regimes built on violence and terror.

 

[tiger b]

If you forget the theory and look at what was done in practice, I would agree. Hitler had the benefit of a bigger industrial base to work with (Lenin had to force that, and quickly). Hitler also was fairly popular, winning an election - the Bolsheviks never were remotely popular.

Oppression is oppression, regardless of the reasoning. If Hitler and Lenin were swapped, would they more or less behave the way towards their own citizens as the other did? Probably.

But it wasn't like Lenin was replacing a great system in 1917, anyway. It's still hard to believe that Russia is such a mess today. The Communist Truth should be that those at the top greedily fucked their own country over.

 

[noSuffering]

If you forget the theory and look at what was done in practice, I would agree. Hitler had the benefit of a bigger industrial base to work with (Lenin had to force that, and quickly). Hitler also was fairly popular, winning an election - the Bolsheviks never were remotely popular.

Oppression is oppression, regardless of the reasoning. If Hitler and Lenin were swapped, would they more or less behave the way towards their own citizens as the other did? Probably.

But it wasn't like Lenin was replacing a great system in 1917, anyway. It's still hard to believe that Russia is such a mess today. The Communist Truth should be that those at the top greedily fucked their own country over.

Two bad and cruel extremes: The first is extreme collectivism, where the individual person means nothing and can be (and is constantly being) subjected to terrible torture for the sake of the interests of the collective. The second is extreme individualism, when an individual person means nothing if he is poor, then it is his own fault and don't give a fuck about his suffering. Of course, both extremes are bad, we need to do everything possible and impossible to reduce suffering in society for everyone, not just the rich - Unconditional basic income, social programs, DECENT help for the poor, high-quality free medicine and education, care for the environment and public infrastructure. In general, a humane society is very important - capitalism like in Scandinavia, not like in the USA.

But damn, the extremes of collectivism are millions of times worse than the extremes of individualism. While under the really terrible extreme individualism in the United States, homeless people suffer without a home on the streets, and millions of people cannot afford medical care, then under extreme collectivism, millions of people are killed through real horrific torture, gulags, wars and mass shootingse. In the USA from mass shootings in schools or anywhere else where dozens of people are killed in each? Communists in mass executions kill tens of thousands of people at a time. Both are bad, but there is a huge difference This is a colossal difference.

If you

And there is a huge difference between individual violence and the violence of a dictatorship.

It is at least theoretically possible to protect yourself from an individual, from a criminal, with the help of personal guns, or public police and courts in a democratic state. There's no hopelessness here.

But with state terror in a dictatorship where there is neither theoretical nor practical protection from violence, because torture to death is a legal duty of the state and it is just a bloody machine impersonally grinding bones (and this is not a figurative expression). Hopelessness and lack of a way out, the absence of even the slightest hope, completely suppresses the psyche and forms helplessness (not learned, but real)

 

[loopdaloop]

Do you have a photo of the magazine itself? I can't find any reference to it on the internet. This sounds interesting because as @Adûnâi has stated Russia has a low birth-rate so I wonder how they are trying to manipulate and convince poor people to have children beyond their financial capabilities

 

[Lupgevif]

Brazil has its mass breeders too, people who have nothing to eat themselves, who have three children while being pregnant of their fourth. They probably don't even know what is communism, though.

 

[noSuffering]

how they are trying to manipulate and convince poor people to have children beyond their financial capabilities

Easy: abortion is prohibited in Russia. Now poor women will be forced to give birth. Some regions have already introduced fines for "persuading women to have an abortion". Statements from the highest authorities of Russia:

"We need to stop producing young women with higher education. Otherwise they forgot about their purpose: to give birth and maintain a home."

"Humanity made a huge mistake when it gave women the opportunity to receive an education"

In Crimea, all private clinics there, without waiting for federal amendments, refused abortions "voluntarily". According to the head of the Crimean Ministry of Health, an offer was made to the heads of commercial medical institutions in a similar way to contribute to improving the demographic situation - and they all agreed. Following this, private clinics in many other regions announced voluntary refusal of abortions. (in Russia, if a business does not "voluntarily" agree to such a proposal from the authorities, then the business will simply be taken away)

The senator from Crimea proposed not to be limited to fines: criminal liability should be imposed for inducing abortion:
- A pregnant woman is very vulnerable and needs to be protected and supported. And when relatives and friends sometimes persuade her to have an abortion, justifying it by saying that there is no money, the conditions are not right, they will kick her out of work... Society must react to this and put those who say this in prison.

 

[Rapière]

Hitler also was fairly popular, winning an election

Hitler's popularity - his nimbus - was much more the result of his victory than it's cause. The NSDAP was down to a few measly percent as soon as Germany's economy recovered a bit in the late 1920s. The only time when fascism seems appealing to people is when they feel like they have nothing left to lose ( not that this is ever truly the case).

If Hitler and Lenin were swapped, would they more or less behave the way towards their own citizens as the other did? Probably.

This is absurd. Lenin had clear political goals that could not have been manifested without the usage of force, especially not in a countgry that was torn by civil war. Hitler, on the other hand, was a neurotic freak who started the most deadly and gruesome war the world has ever seen, and, had he not been stopped, would have successfully erased entire ethnic groups from the face of the earth, simply because he felt disgusted by them. Don't gme wrong, I'm no a fan of Lenin, but putting these two in the same category is insane. Lenin was a complex historical figure and it's probably difficult to put a final verdict on him, given that he died too soon to achieve his goals.

 

[tiger b]

Where did I squarely put them in the same category? Not exactly the point of what I said.

The assertion is about pragmity, so not absurd at all in what I actually said and meant, and I said 'own citizens', I wasn't talking about foreign policy, lebensraum etc. which is a very clear difference. Or pogroms etc.

I'd argue circumstance dictated approach much more often than ideology in Lenin's approach in power, and that can be seen in Lenin's actions, which can be seen to deviate from ideology at times - NEP a case in point. There was no Communism in that: pure pragmity the purpose. Thus, enough evidence to back my assertion, given both were hungry for power above all else, both had an ideology (of varying credibility), both pragmatic at times, and ultimately both were murderers, no matter how it was framed, and it seemed both figures could pretty much justify anything to themselves for the 'greater good'. Circumstance modifies any idealism, for it to actually have a real effect.

Certainly Lenin didn't live long enough to achieve his goals, and he put his actions as necessary for establishing the Communist state, which he didn't get to do/reap the rewards from. He doesn't fall neatly into the tyrannical dictator box, true, but certainly both figures shared a lust for power etc, and there is definitely blood on his hands (eg Red Terror) that an unfulfilled ideology cannot wash away, and his actions paved the way for Stalin - possibly how Lenin would have ruled, probably far too extreme, by all the (limited) evidence, but maybe or maybe not a figure more akin to your categorisation.

What is more interesting is how Russia would have evolved without Communism...but well if my auntie had wheels, she'd be a bike.

 

[Adûnâi]

So the liquidation of the Kulaks, collectivisation, purges, gulags, KGB terror, intimidation of the educated and intellectuals, cronyism, inefficiency, corruption, industrial mismanagement, forced domination of neighboring countries, nuclear willywaving whilst creating economic weakness...a million miles away from what Lenin tried to achieve...and this is basic non-partisan history I'm talking here.

I'm so confused. The USSR:
1. Sent the first man into space.
2. Had a high birth rate, everyone had a job.
3. Presided over peace, immense construction projects, water reservoirs, power plants, everyone got a dwelling.
4. Ruled in peace, zero wars for 45 years.
5. Built hospitals and schools, for free.
6. Industrialised backwaters such as Russian Turkestan and Livonia.

Mods, could you please not ban me for this? All I'm doing is responding to propaganda with propaganda. Although to be fair, what I'm saying (Gagarin, Kakhovka, etc.) seem more grounded in historic fact - especially after 1945, the world before 1945 had been brutal everywhere.

It's a fact - my parents had sex (and I don't), and my parents lived under a peaceful sky (and I don't). They also lived in the USSR. Checkmate.

Fuck russia and the ussr, they're the same thing All communists, lovers of the ussr, let them go back to putin's ass. Who let them out of there?

Putin is one of the criminal capitalist clique that ruined the Soviet Union. No communist in their right mind supports Putin. This is just comically wrong.

Easy: abortion is prohibited in Russia. Now poor women will be forced to give birth.

Interesting! This is the news from November 2023! You should have specified it, I don't follow Russian domestic policies that closely.

Anyway, the issue is that smart and free people don't have kids, whereas dumb and enslaved people do. I for one blame my mom to her face (over the phone, technically) for being such a naïve slave to the patriarchy. I may be traditionalist myself, but if my mom had been riding that carousel as any woman now does (apologies for toxic incel lingo), I wouldn't have been born, win-win.

 

[tiger b]

If you think that's propaganda...that's comical. What I said is basic historical fact. And I'm no capitalist or anti-Soviet.

1. Sent the first man into space.
Who really cares, in the grand scheme of things. Waste of money. A vanity project, a publicity stunt. Fair enough, USSR had good scientists...when they were allowed to do their jobs. Without being purged.

2. Had a high birth rate, everyone had a job.
So did Nigeria and Pakistan. Did people in USSR prosper from their jobs? The answer doesn't seem to be that way.

3. Presided over peace, immense construction projects, water reservoirs, power plants, everyone got a dwelling.
Peace??? By bullying Czechoslovakia, Poland etc? Proxy wars? And how good were those dwellings? 7 years wait for a Lada lol. What labour was the Moscow underground built with, for instance?

Russia has huge resources, a big population...of course there will be some development. How it progressed so poorly compared to other countries with such resources, that's what is interesting.

4. Ruled in peace, zero wars for 45 years.
That's absolute rubbish. It's hysterical you can't even check that. A three minute search would prove you very wrong. What did the Red Army smash itself on for eight years, in the 80s? Maybe you're telling me it's a 'special operation'.

5. Built hospitals and schools, for free.
...like no other countries did. Clap clap. But nothing is for free, unless you say noone paid taxes?

6. Industrialised backwaters such as Russian Turkestan and Livonia.
The pride of the world, I'm sure. What with the diminished Aral sea and chemical poisoning...

There's no checkmate as you're the one playing the game here, sorry. It's basic 101 history. Were you even alive to see the USSR fall apart? To see Gorbachev preparing for the inevitable?

The 'criminal capitalist clique' that ruined Russia were merely the old Communists and their cronies in a new guise. When USSR inevitably collapsed.

I hope you are less confused now. I've no agenda, feel free to actually study it rather than read some half-baked version on Facebook. Maybe it's an identity issue you have so you'd rather not take an even-handed approach to it. Or maybe it's an attempt at comedy

 

[Adûnâi]

The pride of the world, I'm sure. What with the diminished Aral sea and chemical poisoning...

Well, now Latvia is dying out, its people in emigration, its once-famous industries lost and forgotten. That ought to count for something?

Who really cares, in the grand scheme of things. Waste of money. A vanity project, a publicity stunt. Fair enough, USSR had good scientists...when they were allowed to do their jobs. Without being purged.

Ironic. You're arguing from a Marxist position against the USSR. I'm arguing from a fascist position pro the USSR. Yes, it was a cultural statement, and it was beautiful. Man in space!

So did Nigeria and Pakistan. Did people in USSR prosper from their jobs? The answer doesn't seem to be that way.

The Soviet Union was still "the second world", industrialised, urbanised, no famines, no civil wars, full libraries in villages. Pretty comfy.

Peace??? By bullying Czechoslovakia, Poland etc? Proxy wars?

And America wasn't bullying Italy with Operation Gladius? With sponsoring right-wingers against communists? Haha.

Russia has huge resources, a big population...of course there will be some development. How it progressed so poorly compared to other countries with such resources, that's what is interesting.

Well, Russia has become an even bigger shithole since the fall of Gommunizm in 1991, so they're clearly doing something even more wrong.

What did the Red Army smash itself on for eight years, in the 80s?

Andropov was a CIA agent (jk, but srsly, he would have been shot by Stalin).

I hope you are less confused now. I've no agenda, feel free to actually study it rather than read some half-baked version on Facebook. Maybe it's an identity issue you have so you'd rather not take an even-handed approach to it. Or maybe it's an attempt at comedy

Well, I don't accept anyone's views in full. If you're curious to know, I could divulge them in a more cartographic manner.

1. I'm a European nationalist. I consider 1914 CE the highest point of human achievement.
2. I do like Hitler's Germany of 1942, but it burned so bright and so tragically.
3. After the ruination of 1914-45, Europe was no more, split between the traitorous Anglo-Americans and the Communist Russians.
4. But Russia was the lesser of the two evils, and in fact carried plenty of the German cultural traits. Hence my designation of 1945-91 as the twilight era of the Faustian Spirit of old Europa.

And my full-blown schizo talk would be a fantasy where the post-Brejnevian USSR adopted a more fascistic outlook based on the works of the pseudohistorian Lev Gumilev - he became immensely popular anyway, so him influencing the future of the country seems feasible in an alternate reality.

P.S. Bonus points - the USSR created my country of the Ukraine, and gave us Polish lands. It is thanks to Stalin that the Western Ukraine speaks Ukrainian now. Bandera and Stalin were friends...