The US has held hegemonic dominance over at least the western world economicly, culturally, and militarily for the past few decades. It's really hard to go against that so a lot of countries got on board. Some got really rich because of it.
I think of it this way. When your ready about Roman history, you usually see a map that shows the reach of their empire, but not really the boundaries of what you'd consider the core of the empire. Those maps show the extent of their political and military reach.
So just imagine how history books will show the American Empire. The US has hundreds of military bases, everywhere. Its a global empire. It'd be impressive if it weren't so awful. I mean, can you imagine what life would be like if you lived in a country that has a resource the US wants? It must be a nightmare.
Exactly. This should be framed as a failed coup that will result in social reform/revolution. These clowns are poorly organized, on drugs most of the time, and have no clues how the social organism works.
It's pretty shitty that they'll cause a lot of unnecessary pain tho.
Remember the hanging Chad fiasco? After that Congress appropriated money for a digital solution, but did literally no work to standardize or ensure ethics. So a bunch of shit companies bid bottom dollar and got the contracts.
My understanding is that around 2021, a lot of corruption and embezzlement came to light (wow what a surprise). Their long time CEO resigned in disgrace and they lost a lot of members, as well as several court cases. They filed for bankruptcy in an attempt to restructure their organization in Texas, and even Texas said no.
Basically, it was a shitty organization full of shitty people who devdoled to fraud and infighting. It died the way it lived.
Personally, I think it's a great social experience. Once you move past the "I'm going to speak imperfectly until I learn," thing, you basically get to babel like a baby as an adult. People seem to love it, too. Everytime I tell someone I'm learning a language and they speak that language, they're always excited to help me practice.
I think it helps with your primary language too. A lot of languages are related, so learning about the structure of one can help you recognize patterns in another. Since you learn about new grammar rules in your native language first, it's especially useful if it's been a while since you've taken an English class.
The tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is not that they died for their love; it's that they're too young to realize that their love wasn't worth dying for. It's a cautionary tale about the follies and passion of youth, not a love story.
You mean to tell me that someone conducted independent research to verify what they saw on TV, and then choose not to believe what they saw on TV based on a real life experience?
Hey, just a few thoughts I wanted to share in response to this:
First, citing the CIA to praise Stalin is… an odd move.
Second, it's important to recognize that liberals and neoliberals aren't the same thing. The terms get conflated a lot, but they refer to different ideological frameworks, especially in terms of economics and state intervention. Neoliberalism is basically a rebranding of laissez-faire capitalism whereas liberalism favors more of a welfare-state capitalist system.
Third, I’d encourage reading the full context of the document in question. Here are a few excerpts that stood out:
There will not be a dramatic purge.
This might seem like a neutral observation, but it’s actually referring to a change after Stalin’s death. The implication is that dramatic purges did happen under him, and they’re noting that the new leadership wouldn’t continue that pattern.
Inasmuch as the MVD has already been cleaned up.
Again, this is post-Stalin. The MVD (Interior Ministry, which ran the secret police) being “cleaned up” suggests reform following abuses that were, again, tied to Stalin’s regime.
There is now no organized opposition inside the Party in the Soviet Union.
This kind of political consolidation didn’t happen in a vacuum. It reflects the legacy of Stalin’s crackdowns on dissent and internal opposition.
Since the death of Stalin and the blow which was given to the power of the secret police…
That’s a pretty direct reference to Stalin's reliance on the secret police to maintain control. Again, the document frames the aftermath of his death as a shift away from that.
No improvement in the food situation can be expected.
This points to long-standing issues in agricultural production and distribution under the USSR, including during Stalin’s time. Whether or not the shortages were intentional, they’re part of the broader legacy of how poorly the Soviet agricultural system was managed. They were pretty much just experimenting with ways to grow food while failing to produce enough for their own population. I'm all for agricultural research, but only after the people are fed.
In short, this isn’t a glowing report of Stalin’s achievements. It’s describing a system trying to recover from the kind of authoritarian control he enforced.
If you're interested in more critical perspectives from the time, I really recommend My Disillusionment in Russia and My Further Disillusionment in Russia by Emma Goldman. They were written in the early 1920s (just as Stalin was rising to power) and they offer a fascinating, firsthand account of someone who initially supported the revolution (Emma Goldman was an American anarchist exiled to Russia for her beliefs) but became deeply disillusioned with how it played out.
We really don't need to dig up dead guys to give them accolades. We can think of a better system that the USSR or USA.
A lot of people in the west are accustomed to the kind you install under your toilet seat, but I was surprised to see the kitchen sink thing everywhere when I was in SE Asia.
If your curious what the right is pushing for go ahead and check out The Turner Diaries.
If you actually finish the book, wait for your rage to subside then arm yourself.