Page 1 of 5 [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Should we abolish liberalism in America?
Yes 8%  8%  [ 1 ]
No 92%  92%  [ 11 ]
Total votes : 12

Yugoslav1945
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2023
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Posts: 563
Location: Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

08 Apr 2024, 8:20 am

Democrats and Republicans

Liberals and Conservatives

They're all on the same side of the capitalist coin for a long time. Supporting Biden means nothing. It's like supporting Trump but under the disguise of a "liberal". The capitalist two-party system clearly allows for this competition of two major parties that solely depend on corporations and kleptocracy in order to attain such power. The "land of the free" is nothing like you think of it. In fact, America is basically Russia for a reason since they like to complain about Russia having an authoritarian government, the American authoritarian right-wing government is solely run by capitalists who run the two-party system of Democrats and Republicans for centuries. When was the time that America had a third-party individual elected?

Americans are complaining and hating Russia for "authoritarianism" (same for China) and yet the corporates and bourgeois elites don't even allow for a third party to compete and win a significant amount of seats or votes in the elections. Nearly 30 trillion USD of GDP and this country managed to obtain it through dirty work. America, China, and Russia are three imperialist factions with China being the most authoritarian of them all. China literally persecutes Muslims Russia is persecuting Ukrainians for not being Russians and America is persecuting the independents for not voting for Democrats or Republicans.


_________________
"In a socialist society such phenomena must and will disappear. In the old Yugoslavia national oppression by the great-Serb capitalist clique meant strengthening the economic exploitation of the oppressed peoples. This is the inevitable fate of all who suffer from national oppression."

- Josip Broz Tito (Ljubljana, 1948)


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,380
Location: temperate zone

08 Apr 2024, 8:57 am

Right.

Jill Stein (Greens) and Charles Balley (Libertarian) are being starved and brutally beaten as we speak...in the Gulags of America! And are probably undergoing forced sterilization too! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Comparing the way the US "treats" third parties to the way China treats Uighurs and Tibetans...or to the war Russia is waging in Ukraine right now(or the similarly brutal but smaller war against the Chechens a few years ago) is laughable.

Actually we did have ONE third party Candidate win once. A fellow named Lincoln ...fielded by those radical anti slavery weirdos called..."the Republicans". The Greens of their time. But upon that victory the GOP became one of the two major parties. And yes the Dems and the GOP did later cut mutually benificial deals so both parties could stay major.

But Eugene Debs was the only minor party candidate to be jailed. And we still let him run for POTUS from prison.

We dont actively suppress third parties. Its just the culture. Among other things we have the "first past the post" voting system that favors the two big parties. If we had ranked voting it might allow oxygen to third parties.

In Europe every country has zillions of little "splinter" parties. But even in Europe it ends up being essentially two party because the splinter parties tend to form coalition governments ...by banding together to form ad hoc major blocs equivalent to the America's two major parties.



Yugoslav1945
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2023
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Posts: 563
Location: Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

08 Apr 2024, 9:10 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Right.

Jill Stein (Greens) and Charles Balley (Libertarian) are being starved and brutally beaten as we speak...in the Gulags of America! And are probably undergoing forced sterilization too! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Comparing the way the US "treats" third parties to the way China treats Uighurs and Tibetans...or to the war Russia is waging in Ukraine right now(or the similarly brutal but smaller war against the Chechens a few years ago) is laughable.

Actually we did have ONE third party Candidate win once. A fellow named Lincoln ...fielded by those radical anti slavery weirdos called..."the Republicans". The Greens of their time. But upon that victory the GOP became one of the two major parties. And yes the Dems and the GOP did later cut mutually benificial deals so both parties could stay major.

But Eugene Debs was the only minor party candidate to be jailed. And we still let him run for POTUS from prison.

We dont actively suppress third parties. Its just the culture. Among other things we have the "first past the post" voting system that favors the two big parties. If we had ranked voting it might allow oxygen to third parties.

In Europe every country has zillions of little "splinter" parties. But even in Europe it ends up being essentially two party because the splinter parties tend to form coalition governments ...by banding together to form ad hoc major blocs equivalent to the America's two major parties.


The European democracy fares better than the American in terms of party freedom. You're clearly downplaying the situation as "part of the culture". Oh yeah, sure. It is "part of the culture" for Russia to kill Ukrainians and so is "part of the culture" for China to kill Uyghurs. Yes, Lincoln was the only candidate to actually mean something but they didn't like his abolitionist, third-way stance and so they killed him in 1865 in order to maintain the two-party system.

Why am I defendant of European liberal democracy? Well, it's not because I am defending liberals. I simply see Europeans have better plurality than the Americans. Even if Europe also had a two-party system, there is still better chance of a third-party to take over compared to America.

All I see is a laughable pro-American two-party apologist post and yet I am in favor of a one-party state. :lol:


_________________
"In a socialist society such phenomena must and will disappear. In the old Yugoslavia national oppression by the great-Serb capitalist clique meant strengthening the economic exploitation of the oppressed peoples. This is the inevitable fate of all who suffer from national oppression."

- Josip Broz Tito (Ljubljana, 1948)


Yugoslav1945
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2023
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Posts: 563
Location: Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

08 Apr 2024, 9:11 am

Forgot to add but it was also part of "culture" for Yugoslavs to resist imperialism.


_________________
"In a socialist society such phenomena must and will disappear. In the old Yugoslavia national oppression by the great-Serb capitalist clique meant strengthening the economic exploitation of the oppressed peoples. This is the inevitable fate of all who suffer from national oppression."

- Josip Broz Tito (Ljubljana, 1948)


Yugoslav1945
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2023
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Posts: 563
Location: Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

08 Apr 2024, 9:19 am

Also, Libertarian party and Green party are the unpopular version of Democrats VS Republicans. You have yellows favoring individual liberty and being conservative on economy while greens rely on green stuff such as environmentalism, as well as progressive policies of anti-racism, anti-war, and social justice. However, the sad truth is that even if these two became the new parties, the two-party system would be unchanged simply because these two would end up on the same capitalist coin once more because of corporate greed and lobbying.


_________________
"In a socialist society such phenomena must and will disappear. In the old Yugoslavia national oppression by the great-Serb capitalist clique meant strengthening the economic exploitation of the oppressed peoples. This is the inevitable fate of all who suffer from national oppression."

- Josip Broz Tito (Ljubljana, 1948)


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,815
Location: London

08 Apr 2024, 10:07 am

There's more to politics than just "are you a capitalist, yes or no?"

Surely any leftist can appreciate that not all anti-capitalists are the same. Jesus, Sanders, Kropotkin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Allende, Strasser, Ustryalov, Bin Laden, they were all anti-capitalist but also (mostly) very different! I'm sure people who are more familiar than me with anticapitalist politics (of both the left and the right) could point out even more distinctions.

So, if there's all this variety within anticapitalism, safe to say there's also a lot of variety within pro-capitalism. If you can't tell the differences between leaders as wildly different as Trump and Biden, then you've got to re-calibrate. It's like not being able to tell the difference between Hitler and Stalin because they were both opposed to capital.



Yugoslav1945
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2023
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Posts: 563
Location: Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

08 Apr 2024, 10:23 am

The_Walrus wrote:
There's more to politics than just "are you a capitalist, yes or no?"

Surely any leftist can appreciate that not all anti-capitalists are the same. Jesus, Sanders, Kropotkin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Allende, Strasser, Ustryalov, Bin Laden, they were all anti-capitalist but also (mostly) very different! I'm sure people who are more familiar than me with anticapitalist politics (of both the left and the right) could point out even more distinctions.

So, if there's all this variety within anticapitalism, safe to say there's also a lot of variety within pro-capitalism. If you can't tell the differences between leaders as wildly different as Trump and Biden, then you've got to re-calibrate. It's like not being able to tell the difference between Hitler and Stalin because they were both opposed to capital.


Now hold on. You're comparing my evaluation of the boring and dull two-party system to Hitler and Stalin. I say it is wrong because Hitler and Stalin were both totalitarian even if they were anticapitalists. So basically you got Trump and Biden but both are on the same coin of totalitarian politics (the Hitler and Stalin thing).

Recent Pew Research (2024) has indicated that 26% of Americans (roughly 1 out of 4) dislike both Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The survey conducted in February 2024 had a total of 12,693 participants involved, most of them came from ATP (American Trends Panel).

Demographics based on age range show that younger people are growing more dissatisfied with the duopoly of the American neoliberal capitalist system and demand change at once. Let's not forget the fact that we are witnessing a rematch of the two geriatric individuals, a Republican businessman in his late 70s and an 82-year-old aging Democrat. The country is experiencing a gerontocracy as we see two old men past their retirement ages. It's something you also had in the Soviet Union under Brezhnev.

Speaking of similarity, both Biden and Trump would retain the support of Israel. Remember, Trump advocated for Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel and Trump being the re-elected president would continue supporting Israel regardless of party stance just like how Biden is also doing it. Israel is America's biggest ally and both Democrats and Republicans are supportive of it.


_________________
"In a socialist society such phenomena must and will disappear. In the old Yugoslavia national oppression by the great-Serb capitalist clique meant strengthening the economic exploitation of the oppressed peoples. This is the inevitable fate of all who suffer from national oppression."

- Josip Broz Tito (Ljubljana, 1948)


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,815
Location: London

09 Apr 2024, 8:35 am

I'm on the record as saying:

- presidents, while better than monarchs, are still stupid, and should be replaced with Parliamentary systems with less concentration of power in a single individual.

- proportional representation is better than winner-take-all systems (which is the main reason Presidents are stupid, Presidents are inherently winner-take-all)

- political spending should be heavily restricted like it is in the UK to avoid richer candidates gaining excessive advantages

These three changes would turn the US into a European-style pluralist multiparty parliamentary democracy.

That said, it seems to me that 1) the vast majority of Americans support evolution rather than revolution, even those who proclaim support for ending capitalism seem to often be confused social democrats rather than communists; 2) Americans tend to be sympathetic to Israel, 3) revealed preference shows that Americans apparently place a lot of value on experience, if not necessarily political experience, and are willing to elect elderly candidates. So don't expect that pluralism to lead to a dramatic change. It will make it harder for one party to get all their priorities, but if the Democrats and Republicans agree on something it's usually because that's a major vote winner.

I'm also a bit confused as to why you're trying to downplay the differences between Hitler and Stalin. Sure, they're both not only anticapitalist, but authoritarian - but they're also obviously rather different, though admittedly I wouldnt want to vote for either one! Osama bin Laden was also an authoritarian anticapitalist but again, very different to Hitler and Stalin.

And on the point of authoritarianism... Trump is opposed to democracy. Biden is a supporter of democracy. That's pretty much the biggest difference you can have between two politicians.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,380
Location: temperate zone

09 Apr 2024, 9:23 am

Your poll is invalid because you dont define what you mean by "Liberalism".

The word "liberalism" means at least three very different things.

It can mean "liberal" as in "liberal democracy". Any modern western democracy..

It can be "liberaL" in the British sense. "Liberal" as in "neoliberalism". The economic policy of government keeping its hands off of a free market economy ...favored by conservatives.

Or it can mean "Liberal" in the American sense of meaning "a person who is center-left, somewhat Progressive, who is FOR the govt. doing stuff like protect the environment and do stuff for social justice".


So...which "Liberalism" are you asking about abolishing?



Yugoslav1945
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2023
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Posts: 563
Location: Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

09 Apr 2024, 12:03 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Your poll is invalid because you dont define what you mean by "Liberalism".

The word "liberalism" means at least three very different things.

It can mean "liberal" as in "liberal democracy". Any modern western democracy..

It can be "liberaL" in the British sense. "Liberal" as in "neoliberalism". The economic policy of government keeping its hands off of a free market economy ...favored by conservatives.

Or it can mean "Liberal" in the American sense of meaning "a person who is center-left, somewhat Progressive, who is FOR the govt. doing stuff like protect the environment and do stuff for social justice".


So...which "Liberalism" are you asking about abolishing?


The Liberalism I seek to abolish is the liberalism that is divide and conquer and that is enforced against the will of the proletariat. Neoliberalism is the policy that suits the bourgeois. Liberal democracy suits the bourgeois as most "liberal democracies" often rely on corporate greed such as America. Also, the third one is more of a slur used by the reactionaries to refer to any leftist in America.

Liberalism that promotes "individual freedom" is a product of the bourgeois that seeks to divide the proletariat by using their personal matters and politicizing them to the public, often in a hostile tone in an attempt to gain profit by creating unnecessary competition all in the name of "freedom".

Vladimir Lenin wrote:
"The liberals’ hostility to the principle of political self-determination of nations can have one, and only one, real class meaning: national-liberalism, defence of the state privileges of the Great-Russian bourgeoisie."


_________________
"In a socialist society such phenomena must and will disappear. In the old Yugoslavia national oppression by the great-Serb capitalist clique meant strengthening the economic exploitation of the oppressed peoples. This is the inevitable fate of all who suffer from national oppression."

- Josip Broz Tito (Ljubljana, 1948)


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,079
Location: Right over your left shoulder

09 Apr 2024, 12:08 pm

You know what's inherently more flawed than liberal democracy? The sort of deformed worker's state that's the inevitable result of Leninism. The proletariat (along with everyone else) don't want to live in a totalitarian s**thole where they lack access to basic consumer goods like toilet paper and bread, not to mention basic rights.


_________________
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas, this is part of our strategy” —Netanyahu
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
GOP Predators


Yugoslav1945
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2023
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Posts: 563
Location: Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

09 Apr 2024, 12:15 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
That said, it seems to me that 1) the vast majority of Americans support evolution rather than revolution, even those who proclaim support for ending capitalism seem to often be confused social democrats rather than communists;


The "American Evolution" is devolution to an actual Marxist (not the "confused social democrat" a.k.a liberal in disguise of a progressive). America will retain its duopoly as either the Democrats or Republicans seek to establish a one-party state which for some reason hasn't happened but they're working on it. Republicans are doing it with the Project 2025 thing.

The_Walrus wrote:
I'm also a bit confused as to why you're trying to downplay the differences between Hitler and Stalin.


The common inseparable thing is totalitarianism for the two. Surely their ideologies differ but Stalin and Hitler were rather indifferent in terms of their political desires. Stalin is often praised by National Bolsheviks because of his policy of "Socialism in One Country" hence why Stalin could have well replaced Hitler had Stalin continued doing the policy and abolishing the USSR and re-establishing Russia as the hegemon over foreign states, ending the federation just as Serbs intended with Milošević.

The_Walrus wrote:
Osama bin Laden was also an authoritarian anticapitalist


But he was a Jihadist!! These examples provided are an attempt of apologizing about the atrocities of capitalism and it is ignorant of anticapitalists such as Josip Broz Tito who didn't want pure capitalism and actually went accordingly with his self-management economy that presented a third way between Soviet state-ownership and American private ownership.

The_Walrus wrote:
And on the point of authoritarianism... Trump is opposed to democracy. Biden is a supporter of democracy. That's pretty much the biggest difference you can have between two politicians.


Theoretically yes. But those two old men are simply on the same side of the capitalist coin. Capitalism is all about profit and competition. Who are the winners of this? The bourgeois elite that runs the duopoly of the Democrat V Republican.


_________________
"In a socialist society such phenomena must and will disappear. In the old Yugoslavia national oppression by the great-Serb capitalist clique meant strengthening the economic exploitation of the oppressed peoples. This is the inevitable fate of all who suffer from national oppression."

- Josip Broz Tito (Ljubljana, 1948)


Yugoslav1945
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2023
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Posts: 563
Location: Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

09 Apr 2024, 12:21 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
You know what's inherently more flawed than liberal democracy? The sort of deformed worker's state that's the inevitable result of Leninism. The proletariat (along with everyone else) don't want to live in a totalitarian s**thole where they lack access to basic consumer goods like toilet paper and bread, not to mention basic rights.


You're mistaking Lenin for Stalin. Lenin was anti-nationalist but wanted to balance the self-determination of the workers themselves. Lenin's NEP was a policy of Market Socialism. The Leninist regime of the USSR would have been less harsh than Stalin's. Marxism-Leninism would have taken the right move and it wouldn't have been corrupted by Stalinism. Truth be told, Lenin's war policies were indeed harsh and resulted in fatalities but the interwar USSR under Lenin would have been less harsh and less nationalist as Lenin would decentralize the USSR to prevent Russian nationalism from corrupting its way to the top once more and prevent USSR from turning into the second Russian Empire.


_________________
"In a socialist society such phenomena must and will disappear. In the old Yugoslavia national oppression by the great-Serb capitalist clique meant strengthening the economic exploitation of the oppressed peoples. This is the inevitable fate of all who suffer from national oppression."

- Josip Broz Tito (Ljubljana, 1948)


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,079
Location: Right over your left shoulder

09 Apr 2024, 12:27 pm

Yugoslav1945 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
You know what's inherently more flawed than liberal democracy? The sort of deformed worker's state that's the inevitable result of Leninism. The proletariat (along with everyone else) don't want to live in a totalitarian s**thole where they lack access to basic consumer goods like toilet paper and bread, not to mention basic rights.


You're mistaking Lenin for Stalin. Lenin was anti-nationalist but wanted to balance the self-determination of the workers themselves. Lenin's NEP was a policy of Market Socialism. The Leninist regime of the USSR would have been less harsh than Stalin's. Marxism-Leninism would have taken the right move and it wouldn't have been corrupted by Stalinism. Truth be told, Lenin's war policies were indeed harsh and resulted in fatalities but the interwar USSR under Lenin would have been less harsh and less nationalist as Lenin would decentralize the USSR to prevent Russian nationalism from corrupting its way to the top once more and prevent USSR from turning into the second Russian Empire.


You're clearly misguided both about Lenin as a person as well as the ideology he preached. Leninism is inherently totalitarian and the USSR would have been a totalitarian s**thole regardless of who succeeded him. At best a different successor would have led to different metaphorical curtains, but a different window dressing doesn't mean anything substantial has changed.


_________________
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas, this is part of our strategy” —Netanyahu
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
GOP Predators


Yugoslav1945
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2023
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Posts: 563
Location: Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

09 Apr 2024, 12:36 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Yugoslav1945 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
You know what's inherently more flawed than liberal democracy? The sort of deformed worker's state that's the inevitable result of Leninism. The proletariat (along with everyone else) don't want to live in a totalitarian s**thole where they lack access to basic consumer goods like toilet paper and bread, not to mention basic rights.


You're mistaking Lenin for Stalin. Lenin was anti-nationalist but wanted to balance the self-determination of the workers themselves. Lenin's NEP was a policy of Market Socialism. The Leninist regime of the USSR would have been less harsh than Stalin's. Marxism-Leninism would have taken the right move and it wouldn't have been corrupted by Stalinism. Truth be told, Lenin's war policies were indeed harsh and resulted in fatalities but the interwar USSR under Lenin would have been less harsh and less nationalist as Lenin would decentralize the USSR to prevent Russian nationalism from corrupting its way to the top once more and prevent USSR from turning into the second Russian Empire.


You're clearly misguided both about Lenin as a person as well as the ideology he preached. Leninism is inherently totalitarian and the USSR would have been a totalitarian s**thole regardless of who succeeded him. At best a different successor would have led to different metaphorical curtains, but a different window dressing doesn't mean anything substantial has changed.


Lenin didn't want Stalin nor Trotsky to rule! He had made himself clear in his testament, foreshadowing the future of the Soviet Union eventually falling into a chaotic change of government after Lenin died and where one party that is Stalin, wins against Trotsky's faction and then ends with Stalin purging the opposition. Lenin alone (had he survived) would not have concentrated power to himself. He would be the president of life but would still decentralize the USSR to prevent Russian hegemony as well as even relocate some Russian industry to other republics.

The main issue is how USSR would catch up with others? Lenin would have to industrialize quickly. Five-year plans are still carried out but decentralization eventually catches up as well and the USSR still manages to industrialize itself and also be more decentralized than it was in our real history.

Try reading Chapter 5 of Lenin's "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (1914).


_________________
"In a socialist society such phenomena must and will disappear. In the old Yugoslavia national oppression by the great-Serb capitalist clique meant strengthening the economic exploitation of the oppressed peoples. This is the inevitable fate of all who suffer from national oppression."

- Josip Broz Tito (Ljubljana, 1948)


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,079
Location: Right over your left shoulder

09 Apr 2024, 12:39 pm

Yugoslav1945 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Yugoslav1945 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
You know what's inherently more flawed than liberal democracy? The sort of deformed worker's state that's the inevitable result of Leninism. The proletariat (along with everyone else) don't want to live in a totalitarian s**thole where they lack access to basic consumer goods like toilet paper and bread, not to mention basic rights.


You're mistaking Lenin for Stalin. Lenin was anti-nationalist but wanted to balance the self-determination of the workers themselves. Lenin's NEP was a policy of Market Socialism. The Leninist regime of the USSR would have been less harsh than Stalin's. Marxism-Leninism would have taken the right move and it wouldn't have been corrupted by Stalinism. Truth be told, Lenin's war policies were indeed harsh and resulted in fatalities but the interwar USSR under Lenin would have been less harsh and less nationalist as Lenin would decentralize the USSR to prevent Russian nationalism from corrupting its way to the top once more and prevent USSR from turning into the second Russian Empire.


You're clearly misguided both about Lenin as a person as well as the ideology he preached. Leninism is inherently totalitarian and the USSR would have been a totalitarian s**thole regardless of who succeeded him. At best a different successor would have led to different metaphorical curtains, but a different window dressing doesn't mean anything substantial has changed.


Lenin didn't want Stalin nor Trotsky to rule! He had made himself clear in his testament, foreshadowing the future of the Soviet Union eventually falling into a chaotic change of government after Lenin died and where one party that is Stalin, wins against Trotsky's faction and then ends with Stalin purging the opposition. Lenin alone (had he survived) would not have concentrated power to himself. He would be the president of life but would still decentralize the USSR to prevent Russian hegemony as well as even relocate some Russian industry to other republics.

The main issue is how USSR would catch up with others? Lenin would have to industrialize quickly. Five-year plans are still carried out but decentralization eventually catches up as well and the USSR still manages to industrialize itself and also be more decentralized than it was in our real history.

Try reading Chapter 5 of Lenin's "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (1914).


Try reading this thing Lenin wrote before he was in power, it will totally invalidate his actions once he had power.


_________________
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas, this is part of our strategy” —Netanyahu
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
GOP Predators