/gulag/ - gulag

the ussr stopped being socialist after khruschev came into power (will be a highly controversial opinion for revisionists) which makes this an even more ridiculous comparison than to just compare a modern games console to what this highly sanctioned country where video games never got the same popularity as in the west could produce when fucking gorbachev was in power

do you care about religion?

After becoming a waygey it's still a pain in the ass, u gotta wake up early and work 5+ hours a day, Idk why some users are depressed about being a NEET, idk any good copes that I can have in my pocket if I ever will become a wageyfag . I'm used to this lifestyle but I still get mogged from time to time, I try my best to not think about it tho .

is always attempted murder

I’ve never been like the other kids, I always felt different. I was bullied in primary school and I thought they were my friends, in high school I was a straight A student for only the first year then I realised nothing mattered and was a Fortnite addict (also spending over €500 of my mother’s money in VBuCks jfl:feelsLUL:). My GPA plummeted (for example 20/A is a straight A I went down to 10/D), I was sleeping all day at school, had only 3 friends that grew apart in the following years, then I just existed at school. Lastly on the final exams before most people go Uni (I didn’t go yet) I decided to commit suicide but couldn’t even do that, my mother and sister found out, went to the psychiatrist and still going out of necessity andnow my father has disowned me cause I’m not talkative nor hard working cause he had left for more than 8 years and wondering why I’m not willing to do what he wants me to do…

I'd rather soon readjust to sleeping at 5 and waking up at 1. The only outside thing i enjoy (drinking) is usually performed later in the day anyways and driving my car is better after dark since roads are emptier. Gaming and browsing is better in darkness anyways. More at peace at night

I am not an expert, most of this is just me poorly retelling what I've heard from others.
The US is currently attempting to reindustrialize in order to increase their chances of success in a great power conflict, not to mention that they are currently engaged in a naval arms race with China, so the chances of a any war happening between the US and either China or Russia is likely.
If the US goes to war with China, they will do a decent job early on but its likely that they will lose in the long run. They do not currently have the productive capacity or population to win a long war against China. There's a good chance that a lot of countries will be involved, it might genuinely become WWIII. As long as the US retains its current regime, the chances of such a war happening as time goes on is high. There's also a good chance that the US will use nuclear weapons.
If the US goes to war with Russia, the US will probably win so long as they can drum up enough support from the EU, which is likely. The obvious scenario by which this happens is an escalation of the Ukraine conflict, which I'd flip a coin on since I don't think either side will just win at this point. I think Russia is more likely to favor a negotiated settlement that lets them keep Crimea and the Russian-speaking majority regions of western Ukraine, whereas the US will prefer it becomes a perpetually frozen conflict like what's happening in northeastern Syria. China will probably intervene in some way. Low but non-zero chance of either the US or Russia using nuclear weapons, though the US is far more likely to do so since they are the only country so far to have used nuclear weapons in war.
If the US goes to war with Iran, it's very likely that they will win. Iran has too many regional competitors and the current regime is both economically crippled and very unpopular with the general public, a draft will likely result in mutinies. Russia will probably intervene, at the very least to provide materiel.
If the US goes to war with North Korea, its almost inevitable that they will drag China into the conflict.
It's very unlikely but the US might annex Cuba or invade Venezuela, in which case they will win with almost no effort. A single aircraft carrier and some marines would be enough.

Any good books on the events of May '68? Hopefully from a modern day perspective. Documentaries are also welcomed.

In order for socialism to be possible, it must have some degree of support from the majority of the population. This does not mean that it's necessary for most people to become committed socialists. That's impossible, because most people are always apolitical, in any system. The only thing that is necessary is to have a majority of people that are willing to give socialism a shot, or who are at least not opposed to socialism. This kind of majority opinion does exist today in many capitalist countries.

Broadly speaking, there are three strategies that socialists have used or proposed for gaining power:

A. Build a socialist political party, compete in regular elections, and win.

B. Build a political party or organization focused on winning support in the streets and operating outside the framework of the existing state. When there is a wave of discontent against the existing capitalist system, organize marches and protests. If you can gather enough support for your cause to ignite widespread protests around the country, lead your comrades to break into government buildings, arrest the current leaders, and take over the state.

C. Build a trade union-like organization and, once you have enough members, organize a general strike and take over the factories and other workplaces.

Strategies A and B have been used successfully at various points in the past. Strategy C has never worked in the past, perhaps because it requires the most active involvement and carries the greatest risk for the people involved. Notice that although strategy A requires the greatest number of people to sympathise with the socialist cause, the only thing they need to do is vote - and that's a very easy, risk-free one-time deal. Strategies B and C actually require smaller numbers of sympathisers, but those sympathisers need to be a lot more actively involved - and take more risks - than in strategy A.

Of course, it's possible for the same organization to try to pursue two or three different strategies at once, and see which one seems to work best at the moment. That's the approach I support.

However, gaining power is only half of the problem. The other half is what to do once you have power. Many different socialist groups have won power in many different countries in the past, but none of them have succeeded in creating a stable socialist economic system. There have been two types of failure (again, broadly speaking):
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Every day I fantasize about dropping everything and being a travelling vagabond / hobo. This slaving life just isn't worth it anymore. Permanent camping trip with a little work so I can eat doesn't sound so bad.