• Gosplan14_the_Third [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s doomerism, I think. Just like Miyazaki.

          Especially 1990-2005 was the “end of history” after all - for as many Ls we take nowadays from the position of weakness, the neoliberals seemed unstoppable back then. And if, instead of mounting frustration and anti-systemic anger, you have less and less comrades every year, you’re bound to eventually either give up, become a cynic, or get weird with it.

          • GrouchyGrouse [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            That makes sense, now that you put it that way. They refuse to become the enemy (neoliberal) but their future seems foreclosed (socialism) so the only direction to turn is the past…

            • Gosplan14_the_Third [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 month ago

              Conspiracy theories, the past when everything made sense, nationalism without socialism to reach the goals socialism couldn’t deliver on, etc.

              Though of course, the seeds of future political itineraries were already present and not fought against when they were leftists. Those who became libs having a strong stance on freedom and democracy and how socialism could expand it, the future fash being content with having a strong and Well-functioning state, etc. Genuine proletarian desire to overthrow capital is not the first priority of at least a large minority of the left.

  • LaGG_3 [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    I didn’t want to make the original post with too many images, so I cut this first bit off (the USSR still exists in the year 2000 in this show ussr-cry):

    Plus, all the pete-eats being pointed out in a row is funnier shrug-outta-hecks

    • AernaLingus [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m not familiar with that slang (only know servilleta to mean a literal napkin) and Google wasn’t helpful–could you explain it?

      • Bakzik [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Of course.

        In spanish:

        -Servicios de inteligencia = Intelligence Services = Intelligence Agency

        -SERVIcios = Services

        -SERVIlletas.

        And that’s why we call them “napkins”. Is just the similarity of “Servicios” with “Servilleta”. No deeper meaning.

        Sorry for the late response.

        • AernaLingus [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Thanks for the explanation! I guess it’d be like if we called feds “fedoras” in English (although I think “napkins” is funnier since they’re such trivial objects).

          And no worries–wasn’t time sensitive or anything!