So let me get the straight

...

No they didn't. Britain in 1940 and Russia in 1941 were virtually left alone against the Axis.

...

Well maybe they should have accepted the Soviets into the Axis instead of invading such an important trading partner

If they won in Poland we probably wouldn't be having this conversation since we would probably be in space bringing reverse Posadism.

you know which of those countries were actually economic powers right?

...

More in favour of tito truth be told. He also kicked the arses of Nazis while sticking it to Stalin

We were selling you faggots steel until you backstabbed us for no reason

There were members of the NSDAP who opposed Lebensraum such as Joseph Goebbels

Miss me with that gay shit

most of em are tankies. I kinda like it as a joke though. It's like how I become slightly more Castro-friendly around burgers.

...

...

if only Asser had become the leader of Germany instead of Hitler

This map is so inaccurate never post it again

...

Truly a glorious battle.

There were many great battles throughout WW2, but this one is my favourite.

gg soviets

The Soviets paid for all of the equipment and foodstuffs they received.

Leftypol isn't a single entity.

There's literally nothing wrong with this. In the context of WW2 the Soviet Union did a lot of good - and in the end are the reason why Europe isn't a collection of shattered post-fascist states.

...

yeah, this thread is filled with LARPers

I thought the comparison was meant to be a joke.

/liberty/ has BTFO Holla Forums last time, your point?

lol wut

That map shows nothing relating to economics and industry. Germany and Japan were massive powerhouses. Pretty much all of Africa, Southern Asia and Latin America was backwards. The USSR was playing catch up.

I just had a thought.

What if the class situation of the French revolution - feudal to semi-feudal society, a dissatisfied peasantry, a small but growing bourgeoisie, a revolutionary vanguard party seizing state power - is the only functional revolutionary situation?

This situation describes revolutionary France, Russia and China, and all of them have had the effect of producing not socialism but capitalism, that is after a period of concentration of power in the hands of the state which the state later relinquished after a period of reform.

Perhaps this means that the transition to capitalism is the phase in history when revolution plays its most central role, and Marx incorrectly projected this tendency onto future societies. Or perhaps it means that those formerly feudal societies, having finally achieved capitalism on an equal footing with the Western world, have set the stage for a global socialist revolution?

The ability of advanced capitalist countries to avoid revolution was predicated on their ability to smooth over the negative effects of capitalism using Keynsianism and social democracy. It depends on this, and these things are being dismantled more and more by the day. With global economic trends a simple return to these kinds of policies won't be easy, and may not even be possible. The question is whether or not this new order of neoliberalism dominated by MNCs rather than nation states will be able to find a way to ease its contradictions. If it can't then rev up those pitchforks because we're coming buckos.

/liberty/ only had to BTFO of liberty in order to do it.

What specific economic trends would prevent porky from making a return to Keynesian economics and social democracy if capitalism goes into crisis?

...

Nazi Germany was archetypal state capitalist

Yeah, so they could be subject to Nazi board directors who infiltrated the head.

You forgot England - the very first Bourgeois revolution happened under Cromwell in 17th century.

That said: it is very unlikely to be so.

While it is true that it is the least developed nations that experienced the canonical "real revolution", it is also true that none of the developed (industrialized) Capitalist states fell to the level of poverty and desperation of the least developed nations. After all, Capitalist concentrate on protecting their main investments - and that would be developed Capitalist nations.

Situation in Ukraine - fairly developed industrial state - shows that there is potential for revolutions in industrial states, once poverty of the population reaches sufficiently high levels. In fact, it is the future of America: impotent SocDem parties, population without Vanguard, Capitalists using pseudo-Socialist rhetoric and idpol to justify Fascist measures and abolishment of even pretence at democracy.

The better question is what forced porky to adopt atypical (and certainly unpredicted by the orthodox pre-Leninist Marxist thought) behaviour and support welfare state of Keynesian economics in the first place.

The answer is: direct threat of USSR.

Therefore, it is the absence of USSR that is the "economic trend" that prevents return to the welfare state (and ensures failure of the UBI).

I.e. paradoxically enough (or, perhaps, dialectically) popular belief that Socialism had failed is becoming the final nail in the coffin of Capitalism.

reading this shit reminds me how much I love you guyz.

Just like on the right, you'll find a mix of libertarians and authoritarians here.

I thought Holla Forums despises tankies and stalinists?

Isn't the USSR "Capitalism with russian characteristics"?

Dont bully them, they are """""special"""""

I certainly do, can't speak for Holla Forums's retard population, though.

No, late USSR was a bureaucracy with Russian characteristics. And to your first question, most of/leftypol/ is hopefully intelligent enough to see the good as well as the bad things with the USSR and Stalin, also this is a non-sectarian board, so fuck off.

Pirates need to go back to /liberty/ and generic red flag posters don't even have an ideology. Why so condescending?

that's not a mode of production

I don't like associating with the USSR. The communism flag is the same hammer and sickle on the flag of the previously mentioned former state. If it was something else, I'd be using it.

Thanks shoe

Truly an epic battle.

...

ABSOLUT
VERBOTEN

the USSR was an insulated government worker bureaucracy from the beginning. It had the chance to become a communist democracy, but Stalin and Co. choose to instead make it a permanent military state with an undemocratic ranking system. I'd shoot Stalin if I were her too.

Kaplan tried to kill Lenin, ya dunce.

The USSR was garbage, but the West owes it an immense debt for smashing the fucking nonpeople that are the Nazis to smithereens.

No, the West has funded billions for the USSR to beat the nazis.
What do you mean by this?

It means that Fascists are nonpeople.

How can that be?

Lets team up next time

kek
literally reddit historians have pointed out how this wasnt as significant as butthurt american patriots make it out to be
its like they try to grasp for anything they can to try and take credit and beat themselves on the chest, pretty sad tbqh

No the US won the coldwar

Technically, we fought on the same side.

...

I hope you realise that Holla Forums is a byproduct of people seeing that Hitler was right and understand the injustices against Germany before and after WWII. Holla Forums isn't the German Not Socialism you think it is, that died after the fall of Berlin.

Also it's kind of funny thinking you're some kind of revolutionary red army who had any part in destroying Berlin. If a real full blown out war between the two were to happen today, all you leftist faggots living in San Francisco, New York, etc would get absolutely reamed up the ass within a matter of weeks and there's nothing anyone can do to save you.

dat pic is creepy as fuck.

...

Proof?

It had a higher per-capita GDP then Italy when it started WWII. Really makes you think

Fascism is Failure.

nobody has suggested even slightly similar in this thread you delusional faggot

this isnt the sjw board fuck off you literal twink

You both lost, neoliberalism won.

You filthy larpers.

Germany got owned mostly because it was cut off from all resources. Also you ass-kissing stalanists had 30:1 casualties, the only times which you truly beat German forces was when stalin's army was triple the size of the axis forces.

Even in spain you guys got fucking destroyed.

Dialectics don't work that way dummy

The tankies would have loved to join up with the Nazis, and they would have if they weren't backstabbed by them like they were.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks

Oh, yeah, you're right, but leftypol having "won" against pol (when they time machined to the past that is) is totally dialectical.

No you guys got your shit pushed in. You lost 3 times as many people as Jews claim died in the lolocaust. At best it was a Pyrrhic victory that ended up killing the Soviet Union in the long run.

Literally not an argument

...

"The enemy only won because they threw more men than we could handle at us!"

bad bait and literal highschool level of knowledge

read up on how germans recorded casualties vs how soviets recorded even a malfunctioned tank as a "casualty" as well as what the Deep Battle doctrine was in comparison with Schwerpunkt. Obviously this dumbfuck cites wikipedia as his source on casualties, no surprises there