America is resembling the late Soviet union more and more

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from (self.debatealtright)

https://twitter.com/apex_simmaps/status/1381989893224685569

Life expectancy for all races have collapsed. No doubt the drop is steepest among men since males, particularly working class ones have been decimated by outsourcing and corporate consolidation.

Suicides and drug addiction are also on the rise.

There's also the similiarity of an enormous but decrepit military. The red army of the 1980s was the world's largest land army, boasting as many as 50,000 tanks and almost 4 milion men. Yet it suffered from poor morale, low pay, corrupt bureaucracy and ethnic resentment. I'd say the situation is simliar to the current US military, but looking at the trans navy seals, homosexuals and black wahmen of color, I think its safe to say that the US military is worse off than the late Soviet army.

For all its faults, the Red army did fight a destructive but effective campaign in Afghanistan before being forced to retreat due to domestic turmoil.

The Red army just like the US military today also hogged most of the budget. The real US expenditure on the military-intelligence complex easily crosses over one trillion. The military alone accounts for nearly 30% of the budget and 54% of discretionary spending.

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/tom-dispatch-america-defense-budget-bigger-than-you-think/

The most haunting resemblance however is the gerontocracy that came to mark both regimes. Almost all major power brokers in the US are old enough to be my grandfather(i'm 25). Joe Biden is 78, the oldest President in US history. Chuck Schumer, Mitch Mcconnell and Nancy Pelosi are all past 70.

Its no different in the deep state sphere either. Soros and Kissinger are both over 90. Jacob Rothschild is 82. Both David Rockefeller and George Schultz recently croaked. Gates is 65. Bezos is slightly younger at 57.

This gerontocracy indicates a selfish lust for power among the ruling class and a mistrust of their successors. I don't know much about them but from what I've seen, the younger Rockefellers, Soros and Rothschild are nothing compared to the old patriarchs.

The Soviet Union fell into a tailspin after Yuri Andropov died in 1984, I wonder if the same is happening to the US since David Rockefeller died in 2017. The elite have become completely unhinged in the last 4-6 years. Gone are the cautious and judicious silent gens and older boomers.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/510407-us-biden-gerontocracy-soviet-union/

But perhaps the most glaring similarility is in the loss of faith in the system. The American people no longer have faith in the American system, openly seeing it as a tool of plutocratic power. Most Americans have no desire to serve in the military, and the core population of the US, Europeans, are almost a minority at 56%(or less). The boomer and silent generation that over saw the liberal experiment are either dead or dying. The younger generations don't believe in American exceptionalism and global leadership and shining city on the hill stuff.

In the late USSR, most citizens did not want to serve in the military. Only 1% of conscripts would re-enlist. Ethnic Russians fell to about 53% or so of the population, and the Bolshevik revolution and WW2 generation had largely died out. It did not survive long after that.

all 8 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Wrangel 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Civilizations go through cycles and the Soviet union went through its life cycle faster than the countries in the west. Since the Soviet union collapsed in relatively recent years it will in many ways be more similar to what will happen in our countries than previous collapses. When I talk about collapse I am not talking about a doomsday prepper collapse, I am more talking about a period of chaos that opens up new opportunities just like how much of the former Soviet union is better today it is possible parts of the west would be better off 20-30 years after the collapse of the American empire.

But perhaps the most glaring similarility is in the loss of faith in the system.

The system is incapable of solving problems. A good example is the high speed rail line between LA and San Francisco. The line is taking ages to build and will cost a fortune and the project is completely mismanaged. Covid was a failiure and America could neither accept deaths and keep society open nor properly eradicate the virus like Vietnam and China and open back up. Instead it has been a long slow mess. The politicians can't solve housing, they can't deliver cheap medical care, they can't balance the budget and they are out of touch. Elites that can't solve problems and can't deliver do not last.

[–]Bagarmoossen 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Also by 1990 Russians were on the verge of losing their majority status in the USSR. European nationalities had been suffering from demographic decline since WWII while the Muslim republics still had third-world level birth rates. In fact, if the USSR were still around today, Muslims would be responsible for approximately half of all births, or maybe more. Even if the commie leadership had managed to reform the system and keep the country together for an extra decade, it would eventually collapse and plunge into a civil war just like Yugoslavia, for demographic reasons alone.

If we look at it from this perspective, the fall of the USSR was not just the collapse of the Communist bloc, it was also the collapse of Russian Imperial power, as the Soviet Union was the successor state of the Russian Empire and Russians were the dominant nationality politically and culturally. Russians in a way continued to act as colonists in the moslem Republics during the Soviet period, and when the system collapsed they left en masse, just like Germans left the East after the Nazi defeat. We don't usually see it that way but I view the fall of the USSR as another chapter in the century-long decline of European political, cultural, economic and military power.

[–]SamiAlHayyidGrand Mufti Imam Sheikh Professor Al Hadji Dr. Sami al-Hayyid 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This reminds me of some author (I've never been able to relocate where I read this) who posited that USSR was not the enemy of the West because it was (by the time that he was writing) 'conservative'.

It also reminds me of two incidents alleged to have involved Leonid Brezhnev. It is unclear whether either actually happened.

One incident allegedly involves Brezhnev and Thatcher (some other sources put it as Brezhnev and Callaghan). Brezhnev is alleged to have said: 'There is only one important question facing us, and that is the question of whether the white race will survive.' In the Thatcher version of this story, Thatcher allegedly stormed out of the room then and there, rather than answering Brezhnev.

Another incident allegedly involves Brezhnev and Nixon. Brezhnev basically says that the USA/USSR are the world's two 'White powers' and that they should be on the same side against Red China. He also mentions that if nuclear war breaks out between USA/USSR, the browns and yellows (he refers to them by skin colour) will be ruling the Earth. Nixon was supposedly silent, not replying to these remarks.

If these events were true, this has the amusing implication that a literal part-Tatar Communist leader was more 'racist' than Thatcher or Nixon. Some Far-Leftists have attempted to explain this away by claiming that Thatcher and Nixon were 'racist' and that Brezhnev was simply talking in language that they would understand, i.e. by appearing to be a fellow 'racist'. Obviously there is something off about this excuse given that neither Thatcher nor Nixon were 'racist' enough to even respond, let alone agree.

Personally I disagree about viewing the USSR as a continuity of the Russian civilization. But there are some who have believed it. For example, there was a Russian dissident who returned to Russia long after the revolution, claiming that the Bolsheviks had become patriotic. Because his opposition to them was on the basis of their internationalism/anti-Russianism, he thought that the differences between him and them were essentially gone.

[–]InvoluntaryHalibut 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You are being hopelessly optimistic. This is early stage soviet union. Life spans went down then too.

The most haunting resemblance however is the gerontocracy that came to mark both regimes.

Uh no. Old people are always in control in a healthy society because no one even begins to get how the world works until around 35.

Schumer, kissinger, rothschild, bezos share something else besides old age.

Young people are ridiculously manipulatable. Why do you think these folks always go after the “students”? Why do they want 16 year olds to vote?

Making the voting age 30 or 35 will instantly fix a lot of problems.

University is becoming welfare for 20 somethings not doing anything useful.

Same with socialized medicine— another scam to redistribute wealth from older more conservative americans to young leftist foreigners.

System needs to totally crash before anything is fixed I fear.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

bezos

He's supposedly Norwegian (and the name comes from a Cuban stepfather). However, the new CEO is definitively very Jewish.

[–]InvoluntaryHalibut 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I am not seeing norwegian here.

https://files.catbox.moe/mv83h8.jpeg

This is his mom Jacklyn Gise. Looks like she’s got a head for business

https://files.catbox.moe/v3vjlb.jpg

[–]SamiAlHayyidGrand Mufti Imam Sheikh Professor Al Hadji Dr. Sami al-Hayyid 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's a few other similarities between America and the USSR also worth noting. Off the top of my head:

  • Both were founded by radical revolutionaries who were the Far-Left of their respective time periods.
  • Both were 'proposition nations' in which being considered part of the in-group involved appearing to adhere to certain mental states (attitudes, beliefs, ideas, etc.)
  • Both essentially have the same values (extreme emphasis on freedom and equality) but merely interpreted them in different ways (e.g. USA was traditionally about equality of opportunity and negative liberty; USSR aspired to equality of outcomes and positive liberty).
  • Both remind one of the importance of academic fields to politics (the Marxists routinely drew upon philosophers like Kant and Hegel and upon 'bourgeois' economists like Ricardo and Smith; America similarly owes a debt to Locke).

There are also some significant differences:

  • USSR started off as socioculturally and economically Far-Left and tried to move Rightward in all respects as it aged (e.g. tried to demolish the family until around 1926 when the government decided there were too many war orphans for them to deal with, Stalin put an end to tolerance of abortion, Gorbachev put additional restrictions on alcohol production in the early 1980s), USA started off as culturally conservative but is lurching socioculturally Leftward.
  • The USSR was rapidly decentralizing in all respects (while China only decentralized its economy). American power is going in the opposite direction (away from the states and towards the Federal Government).

Unwillingness to serve in the military (and rapid alteration of the military's demographics) also has parallels with the Roman Empire (the Roman military was already minority Roman before 100 AD).

[–]Jacinda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Spencer Quinn suggests the US is starting to resemble the tail end of Tsarist Russia.

Counter Currents:

An eeriness emerges, however, when we realize that the events leading to the March revolution closely resemble the events taking place in the United States 123 years later in the days following the death of black felon George Floyd. The Left, with its Black Lives Matter allies, is mobilizing in a violent swirl of revolutionary fervor. They are well-organized and funded.

They are also engaging in the kind of violence, ruthless intimidation, and hateful rhetoric that Solzhenitsyn documents in March 1917. It seems that Solzhenitsyn was writing more for twenty-first-century America than for post-Soviet Russia, as absurd as that may have sounded when the book was first published in 1986.

In either case, the United States at this moment appears on the brink of a communist-inspired revolution, with race replacing class, non-whites replacing the proletariat, whites replacing the aristocracy, and Jews more or less performing the same roles then and now.

[Solzhenitsyn's novel] March 1917 not only offers insight on events and the words and actions of the central players but also crucial guidance (often in the form of Solzhenitsyn’s authorial asides) on how such a catastrophe could have been avoided. [Cont...]