anarcho_blinkenist

What does that have to do with the internal collapse of the USSR?

you've still not made any actual assertions. "The internal collapse of the USSR" makes it seem like you're gesturing toward having some actual knowledge, which you're refusing to disclose, instead making smug assertions that this hidden vague knowledge that you refuse to declare means you're right. So, what does "the internal collapse of the USSR" actually mean to you? What are you imagining (the pictures and words in your brain) when you say "the internal collapse of the USSR," and what were the causes in your opinion for whatever you're imagining?

It doesn't seem like you actually know what you're talking about, because you're desperately avoiding making real substantive statements in any of these comments, instead throwing tantrums when pressed on what you actually think. Tell us your actual positions, without petulant 'McCarthy-if-he-was-a-redditor' tantrums, or otherwise stop pretending to have any.

But we both know that’s not why it collapsed.

okay, then tell us why you think it collapsed? These vague insinuations and gesturing don't prove your point, they make it seem like you're unsure of the basis of your own assertions.

Edit: And for the record, the first ever experiment of a modern socialist country in history, with no earlier examples to work off of, succumbing to a series of both external and internal contradictions doesn't say anything concretely about the viability of socialism as a whole. In fact, their massively successful strides toward constructing new relations of society, and the betterment of living standards for the vast masses of its people, and the provided security of housing, employment, nutrition, community, and healthcare which was established after fully collectivizing and industrializing (industrializing in 1/10 of the time it took the west to industrialize, without the fundamental basis of primitive accumulation through global colonialism, settler-colonialism, genocide, chattel slavery, child labor, aggressive wars, and malthusian sanitation practices that under-girded the western industrial revolution; and doing so after suffering such destruction in WWI and the civil and counter-revolutionary-interventionist war no less) proves there are extremely strong cases for it being a model of success to learn from and build off of, while learning from its shortcomings and mistakes.

The "middle class" never existed. The "middle class" is an invented wedge to split the working class and try to turn segments of itself, against itself. It has no material basis. It is the 'myth of upward mobility under capitalism' distilled into a propaganda phrase to obscure the dualistic and antagonistic class relations in capitalist society between the PROPERTIED and UNPROPERTIED (those who own capital and those who do not), and the contradictions and conflicts therein.

It is false consciousness; personified by and in the 'middle manager' who is PROPERTYLESS (proletarian), but paid more and promised the "opportunity of more to come" to align themselves with the interests of the PROPERTIED, and take on the role of a low-level overseer -- to function as both a compliance enforcer and a mediative focus-dulling pain-sponge standing in the middle of, and soaking up the conflict between, the ONLY REAL TWO CLASSES IN CAPITALIST SOCIETY: The Worker, and the Capitalist.

"Middle class" is liberal sleight-of-hand in its core and conception, and a term to be derided and discarded in all use, except as a magnifying glass to show the ways capitalism distorts and deceives about the real nature of its own properties and relations; and how the ruling class generates and contributes to the development of false consciousness through their reframing of production's own characteristics, in order to reify into political "identities" to be captured and capitalized upon those roles which naturally manifest out of the laws of functional industrial-productive logistics, ie. the need for 'managers' to administrate complex or large-scale productive and distributive tasks. This serves double roles in the laws of colonial and imperial relations in places like the USA, as this distinction is also in practice highly racialized and rooted in the ongoing historical unfolding of these basal-and-superstructural systems of exploitation.

Make note of the conspicuous absences and obfuscations when duopolist-exploiter X or Y says they "fight for the middle class;" that they are not fighting for you or me in the working class, but pandering to those "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" that they've bought off enough or otherwise tricked into this false consciousness, to give them their ever-shrinking electoral margins they require and fight each other over so they don't have to pay any mind to the working class masses who make up the majority; because they in reality work for the big bourgeois, the capitalists, and the petty-bourgeois "small business tyrants" who think of themselves as capitalists

all at the expense of the working class domestically and abroad.

Makes one think who all has been benefiting from the expansion of militarism and conflict, doesn't it? But no need for us to worry, because I'm certain the peace-loving Democrats, who I'm assured by very democracy-valuing liberals, are despite all appearances definitely not nearly-indistinguishable from the open-fanged right-wing Republicans, and will stop this US militarism which is destroying the planet faster than anyone.

Pay no attention to the 3rd parties who actually come out against militarism; If we just give the wing of the bipartisan-imperialists who actually rely on working class margins whatever votes they want regardless of their actions forever, then surely because of how appreciative they are of us that they will gift to us some result that's remotely different than all of exactly this and exactly what brought us here... right?

C A P I T A L I S T I N N O V A T I O N

and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehlen_Organization
and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sunrise_(World_War_II)
and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
and https://www.historynet.com/these-nato-generals-had-unusual-backgrounds-they-served-in-the-third-reich/
and https://www.redstreetjournal.com/p/cia1
and... yknow i'd be easier to name the nazis that the US intelligence and military didn't hire. which some were instead by MI6 and Mossad, like the pioneer of the gas vans Walter Rauff [Archived]
And for good measure: just a few of the industrialists and political elite of the US capitalist class who financed and were deeply connected with the Nazis and the German capitalist class for whom fascism were the anti-communist market-seizing attack dogs. ("first they came for the communists...")

the soviet union hasn't existed for like, 33 years. You need to wake up. In fact I think you need a mirror, because you are so knee-jerk reactionary with needing to engage in a nationalist either/or narrative here that you are making it up for other people out of wholecloth.

exactly my thought

people consumed all these dystopian movies and thought "what a great rubric for society!" we're so fucked lol. These death machines (like drones and such) are also where the most work and funding go for machine learning and AI research too. What could go wroooong

I suggest Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution to break people out first, less scary than Lenin, and a I think a "woman's touch" does a thing for peoples minds under patriarchal norms, with the assumption that they're somehow less capable of all of the things they're afraid of. It was critical in my political education when I was starting off grabbing from everywhere to see what gripped the road I saw us flying down (Conquest of Bread sucked, never read more 'kum-ba-ya' utopian idealist tripe in my life, and I could tell that having barely even read much Marx at that point); and Reform or Revolution is more focused on dismantling the single topic. From there, once the reader are forced to mull on that reform will never save us, haunted by their discomfort and spurred by the sprouting seeds of their discontent the only logical next step is to try to find out "okay, well then what is to be done?"

But you have to give a background lesson first if the book/site of it you send them doesn't explain in the preface, the whole thing that in the context of her book "Social-democrat" meant socialists in general; both revolutionary and the Bernstien-type 'voting in socialism through reform' revisonists; because this was in like 1900, before the failure of the second international and resultant split of the communists. It's only after all of that and the 3rd international and the betrayal of Rosa and the communist KPD by the reformists that that the "social democrats" came to be understood as we know them today, reformist welfare liberals (which, incidentally, thoroughly and undeniably vindicates Luxemburg, Lenin and the Bolsheviks, et al and their criticisms of reformism).

Marx has been blunted and made tame and by those who haven’t read him.

You might say they have "Turned Marx Into A Common Liberal"

Shitty billionaire

ah but you repeat yourself

Sees the USA doing what it's always done, which we've known since COINTELPRO and Snowden's whistleblowing

"THIS IS LIKE CHINA!!!"