this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
1076 points (96.2% liked)
memes
15844 readers
4417 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Someone gets it.
Lets instead do this:
Every citizen, irrespective of their nationality, skincolor, gender has the right to:
This is directly taken from a 1936 constitution. Today one could improve on it but we're so much worse, everywhere.
Now guess which one.
Go check if you dare
Uh... This is coming from the folks who said "he who does not work, neither shall he eat" during a famine so... uh... yeah, that's not the flex you think it is.
Edit: And in case anyone is wondering, this gets worse with context.
I thought it was the nazis who said that, so I checked it with FuckDuckGo assist:
Also love that people try to make it morally acceptable because of reasons.
As opposed to the current time of surplus and abundance where it is if "you don't work you don't eat". Which is morally a lot worse considering there is more than enough food to feed everyone
Yeah... no. Very little in modern history is morally worse than Soviet management of the famine of 1930-1933 (which they caused, too). That shit was at least on par with the Irish Famine in terms of sheer moral depravity.
Let me get this straight. To you, a famine produced unintentionally through policy that spiked class war and originated primarily from rich farmers sabotaging the crops and livestock as a response to their lands being collectivized in the first successful collectivization of a country in the history of the Earth, is to you as morally depraved as the English colonists literally starving Irish to death because of colonial and racist beliefs?
I won't dignify this slop with a response. Fucking tankies, man.
You won't dignify me with a response because you're simply replicating propaganda that you've heard on Reddit, and you can't argue from knowledge but from vibes.
I don't know choosing to not feed people when there is enough food to feed everyone seems a lot worse than choosing which people to not feed during a time of famine.
Obviously more people die from the famine, but at least that's due to a lack of resources and not a manufactured scarcity
I can't find a way to phrase this that's not offensive, so I'll just go ahead: Are you being obtuse or do you just not know what you're talking about? Because if it's the latter you should at least take a scroll down this Wikipedia page before you talk about this stuff. However, I will say that sacrificing millions of people for holy communism (which is what happened; the famine was a choice) isn't much better than sacrificing them for holy property rights. Not asking for foreign aid and denying a famine even existed was also inexcusable.
citation needed
look up just a few of the atrocities the capitalist west has committed. some in the name of destroying socialism.
if you think mismanaging a famine is worse than enslaving entire countries you are either misinformed or speaking in very bad faith.
They also created the famine by decentralizing agriculture and planning, but at least that sort of people learned their lesson from it and didn't repeat the exact same blunder in China years later, right?
And this was said about able-bodied parasites such as owners of the means of production, shareholders, landlords, and others living off society on non-labor income. At the same time, the population received old-age and disability pensions, maternity leave for women in labor and a huge number of social payments and compensations. Too bad most believe Goebbels propaganda and don't study history.
And Ukrainians, don't forget Ukrainians. I know enough about early Soviet history to know that Stalin was a cold-blooded murderer. Not that the rest of the Communist Party was full of upstanding global citizens, but Stalin was particularly egregious.
I assure you: you do not.
Here we go again with the false claims of hunger directed particularly against Ukrainians.
The Bolsheviks gave Ukrainians for the first time in history borders of their own, representation of their own in politics and the right to study for free and in their own language. There are literal letters between Rosa Luxembourg and Lenin in which Rosa argues against Ukraine getting its own representation as a nationality, and Lenin argues in favour of it (which ultimately was done).
The president of the Soviet Union after Stalin was Ukrainian. There is no precedent, no continuation, and no following episode of hunger spiking particularly in Ukraine as it more-or-less did in the early 30s. And millions died outside Ukraine too during that hunger episode, primarily in southern Russia and Central Asia.
Trying to make the 30s famine about Ukrainians is a propaganda exercise first invented by the Nazis to draw Ukrainian sympathy during the Nazi invasion, and it's picking up strength again as it's used in Europe to stoke Russophobia and anti-communist sentiment.
Of course you do, from the textbooks of Goebels and his followers.
https://shron1.chtyvo.org.ua/Niedzielko_Romuald/Kresova_knyha_spravedlyvykh_1939_1945_Pro_ukraintsiv_iaki_riatuvaly_poliakiv.pdf
http://resource.history.org.ua/cgi-bin/eiu/history.exe?C21COM=2&I21DBN=ELIB&P21DBN=ELIB&Image_file_name=book%2F0008802.pdf&IMAGE_FILE_DOWNLOAD=0
https://liva.com.ua/lenin-ukraine.html
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
edit: updated links
Surely anyone who dares criticize the great Soviets is a straight up Nazi! There can be no other explanation!
I don't think that's what they're saying. There are countless pieces of Nazi propaganda that were taken as fact at some point in the intervening 80 years. Famously, the number of people killed in the Dresden bombing was hugely inflated by the Nazis to smear the Allies, and those numbers were accepted for a very long time.
In this case, yes. These criticisms are literally Nazi propaganda.
How are those comparable? In one an able bodied person refuses work, for they need not to. On the other someone incapable of work receive negligible amounts so they may survive
I also very much so doubt you know who Goebbels is
And those were obviously 100% kept 🤡
Luckily, the Soviet union treated homosexuals to a similar standard. /s
Couldn't we just add equality for sexual orientation and gender expression to a new list of rights, along with the things already mentioned?
OP even said, "Today one could improve on it," implying that the referenced constitution isn't meant to be a comprehensive list for the modern day.
The Soviet Union didn't particularly treat homosexuals any worse than most countries at the time. Sure, it should have done better, but there are limitations to ideology when lessentially your entire ideological base members die in the struggle against the Nazis due to being the first to volunteer.
You don't get to blame this on the Nazis.
Again, not any worse than any other country of the time.
Actually it is worse because they were better and then actively decided to make things worse.
If you had actually read anything on the "decriminalization" of homosexuality in Soviet Russia after 1917, you'd know that there was not really any social movement on the side of legalizing homosexuality. The fact that its criminalization was repealed is mostly due to Bolsheviks wanting to repeal essentially all Russian Imperial law.
Homosexuality wasn't even well-understood at the time, they conflated gender and sexuality, which is why only male homosexuality was criminalized. The Soviet Union, due to it being heir to a very patriarchal society, wanted "stronger men and workers", and lesbians were seen as a more masculine version of men (which was accepted) whereas gays were seen as "feminized men", which was seen negatively.
Even then, my point is that after the 40s most of the theorists of socialism were fucking killed at the hands of Nazis, and that's one of the biggest reasons why social policy didn't develop sufficiently in the Soviet Union. But even so, the criminalization of homosexuality for the most part wasn't particularly prosecuted compared to many countries, there's a difference between something being illegal and something being prosecuted.
All in all: yes, they should have done better, but the material conditions of the moment didn't really allow for much better.
The maximum hours you can work did not apply to everyone as my former boss has stories of working 12+ hours in the gulag he was sent to for reasons he does not know.
Go check those living quarters they had lol, and food queues, and how well the health care worked if you had nothing to bribe with. Those sweet shortages of everything.
You should talk to someone who actually lived in the "union" and stop slurping kremlin propaganda. But will you? I wouldn't bet on it.
Even if i dont check and just believe what you wrote, it still beats the shit out of the situation a ton of us are in right now (also that was literally 34+ yrs ago. Life was different then AND the country was recovering from tons of shit). Not to speak of the countries that make our ill gotten comfort possible too. And just to clarify, present day russia is not communist or socialist. they're as capitalist as the western states are. They are no better and no worse in terms of inequality.
The important part, will you have a respectful discussion or do I have to block you?
Man, it Ended 34 years ago, check out how life was in the eighties in URSS. Or seventies. The gulag vas so nice.
Today it's an autocracy, people earn 200€ a month and goes to prison for nothing, what a glorious place.
But I'm probably talking in the wind here, you don't seems to be interested in knowing right or wrong:
If you want to know, do check.
And thats what I meant.
Respect means you acknowledge my arguments. Just backing off on the insults a bit (but not fully) isnt cutting it. Respectful discussion is addressing people's arguments as well as not insulting them or their intelligence.
I will definitely take the time and check things that are brought forward. Saying "just because shit was bad back then means exactly that, not that the system it was in was shit." isnt the same as sticking fingers in ones ears and singing lalala. Doing as if that were the case is just abusive rhetoric.
Because shit is horrendous today as well: Fentanyl hordes, people freezing to death on the streets, protesters shot, people deported to concentration camps, genocide, media spewing propaganda, most of the population living paycheck to paycheck, guantanamo. Most of the examples are US but the EU is only marginally different and catching up fast.
There is no such thing as a perfect system. Gulags alone are no sole cause for dismissal same as guantanamo is.
Here's a video about the reason why people hate socialism so much https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mhYS59egWQc
I don't acknowledge your arguments because the boil down to whataboutism, "it was a long time ago" and other fallacies.
Then you goalpoast-move and try to say I don't like socialism lol. If you think the USSR was socialist I have a bridge to sell you.
BTW what bout you acknowledge my arguments? Based on historical facts? Nah guess you doesn't like what you'd read.
URSS was an authororian crap "union" and Russia is trying to become as bad, hopefully Russian will go the same way and be dismantled ASAP so their citisens can finally live in a free country.
Also Europe is on the brink of collapse or something? ROFL I live here. But you don't seems to be interested in facts.
Yeah, I didnt think you would be able to defend against any of it.
But since you're still being condescending, this conversation is now over.
I will check the stuff you mentioned because, unlike you, I have no issue with being corrected.
Good luck with your attitude mate.
Lol I sure have a limited energy for tankies, but if you're serious i'll be so to.
Have a nice evening.
productivity has increased so that we don't need to work so much anymore.
Absolutely correct. Thats why I said one could improve on it.
I did my 7h of work, I'm retiring now.