The "Alt-Right Pipeline" Narrative Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE8oFRlDb9A

@matrix
This guy literally claims communists are pro-corpo
That's socdems
In stalin's own words:
"social democrats are objectively the moderate side of fascism"

@Spaghettimon Embracing a corporate monopoly is currently the best way of achieving communism imo

@matrix That would be, at best, accelerationism and historically while effective, is inhumane

I don't see socialism in the near future of the US, no matter the path taken, they'd go full fash before but oh well, not my problem if it happens with me not being even from the West and all

@Spaghettimon >implying communists care about being humane

but yeah

@matrix I mean, I have read the decree nº144 of the USSR and the plans and execution of the 4th 5-year plan, so yes, I do say that communists care about being humane

But go ahead, believe everything they tell you about "le evils of communist™"

@Spaghettimon
"I've read the propaganda so I know what's going on"

"I'm going to steal your hard work and throw you in jail. I'm very humane."

@matrix "I've read propaganda"
I have read laws, leaked documents, 1st and 3rd party statistics, weather reports from the time and so on and so forth

A country's constitution is not propaganda

@Spaghettimon Censorship in Czechoslovak Socialist Republic officially ended in 1968 and yet it didn't stop. Reading the laws only gets you so far.

3rd party statistics you say? Those seem to be saying the opposite of your claims

@matrix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954

It was in the context of the cold war and both sides censored each other until its end, just like the US is now once again censoring its enemies and its enemies censoring again the US

@Spag
>outlaw enemy sponsored party wanting violent revolution in a poorly written law
vs
>setup huge apparatus of censors through which all publication must go through, jail people entrepreneurship, only allow one party

"but muh both sides"

@matrix

>jail people for entrepreneurship
[an.1]

>only allow one party
The party is but one of the organizations which could have candidates [an.2]
Also, they saw that dividing between multiple parties didn't serve to make more ideas heard since every individual has a different idea, but that multiple parties would only serve to create internal conflict for they would see it more as a thing of one team against the other than the policies their candidates supported. Also [an.3]

@Spag
1. You had to join a "guild" (forgot the word) to do so
2.Only selected and approved by the party. Elections also often violated principles of your vote being secret.