How so? You cannot organize for revolution within the confines of the DNC. You need working class parties like PSL that exist outside of parties like the DNC and GOP, and you need to organize for revolution, not just continue to try to beat the house at a game we all know the house has rigged and can pull the plug at any time.

Lol! Wut? The Soviets didn't form an "anti-Nazi alliance"…they were allied with the Nazis. They made a deal with them to carve up Eastern Europe between their two empires. This was literally the same cynical opportunism that led the Americans to give sanctuary to Nazi scientists after the war. If this means that Liberals are somehow naturally aligned with fascism, in your mind…then so are Communists, by the same criteria. It simply isn't true, either way.

It's amazing that every comment you post is so embarrassingly wrong.

The USSR spent years trying to build an anti-Nazi alliance. 1933 they proposed collective security at the League of Nations. 1935 they signed mutual defense pacts with France and Czechoslovakia. Spring 1939 they sat in Moscow for months begging Britain and France for a real triple alliance. The West stalled. Refused to guarantee the Baltics. Refused to let the Red Army cross Poland to actually fight Hitler. Poland's elite, more scared of workers than of Nazis, said no too and instead joined Hitler in attacking Czechoslovakia. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact happened because liberals handed Hitler Eastern Europe rather than work with socialists.

When Soviet troops entered eastern Poland September 17 1939, the Polish state had already collapsed. Government fled to Romania September 15. Warsaw was burning. The army was broken. The lands the USSR moved into? Not Poland proper. Territories Poland had seized and occupied by force in 1919-1921 from Belarus, Ukraine, and Lithuania.

And spare me the nonsense about liberals and fascists. They share a foundation: defense of capitalist property. When capital feels threatened, liberalism drops the mask. Chile 1973. Indonesia 1965. Greece 1967. The Soviet Union abolished the capitalist class. That is a total category difference.

Then there is denazification. The contrast couldn't be clearer. In the Soviet zone, former Nazis went to labor camps. They worked. They earned minimum wage like other inmates. In the West? Operation Paperclip handed over 1,600+ Nazi scientists, officers, and spies. Wernher von Braun, who used slave labor to build V-2 rockets, became head of NASA's Apollo program. Adolf Heusinger, Hitler's Chief of the General Staff, became Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. Johannes Steinhoff, Nazi ace, also chaired NATO's military committee. Heinz Reinefarth, who massacred civilians in Warsaw, became a respected mayor in West Germany.

I genuinely cannot fathom how someone can be this historically, politically, and materially illiterate and still type with such confidence.

The communists were never allies with the Nazis. A non-aggression pact is not an alliance. The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.

When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.

Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:

If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.

Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.

I am being honest here, that's why I can recognize that since fascism and liberalism are both built on capitalism, they are diametrically opposed to socialism and have more in common with each other than they do with socialism.

Thanks for proving you're as illiterate about history as you are about politics. Now there's almost no chance any serious adults accidentally think you have anything intelligent to say.