>the body was too longFuck off
>Yeap this guy (Debord) thought almost the same but in his ideas its not the money that really matter but commodities which you can buy with money, who in turn serve to keep up the spectacle system afloat by selling people images instead of things and keeping peoples separated and shitI don't think that's the case. I think what he's pointing to in that excerpt is conspicuous consumption or the concept of bread and circus, with consumer products being the metaphorical bread, but I think both of those kinda cease to exist at any dangerous level if you remove the systemic issues underpinning them (that is, people will always buy bread, that isn't the issue; it's the circus telling them to buy bread, telling them they aren't cool if they don't have the latest sourdough, et cetera.) There's definitely something to be said of the perverse nature of advertisement, especially in the modern era, what with the infinite scroll, ads being jammed in more and more places, and so on, and I daresay the left is partially to blame for the post-2015 advertisement epidemic. Maybe this is a very internet-centric way of looking at things, but advertisers only really started to become malicious forces with lots of leverage (or rather, realized the leverage they held) around 2015, when the adpocalypse took place. If you think back to then, at least here in America, distinctly from now, PC and cancel culture were real and thriving, and given it was still Obama's White House, companies like Pepsi didn't want their ad next to, say, a Filthy Frank video, because the leftist majority would whine and cry that he said bad words. That, to me, is how we got into the mess we're in today where tiktokers say "I really opposite of like that she self-unalived after getting graped in the panini". Road to hell is paved in good intentions, right? Regardless, I think it's kind of a misplaced grievance, because it shifts what's really an issue with mass advertising onto consumer choice. The human brain wasn't built to deal with a billion different screens telling them they aren't adequate unless they get x or y product, especially today where the rate of exposure is dramatically increased with short form content (compare, for example, commercials on the TV, which most people took as their cue to go take a piss, to the endless TikTok scroll, where every other video is trying to sell you a VPN or Viagra or some shit). Debord sounds interesting, though. Never read him, maybe you can give me a recommendation?
>During Lenin there was a lot of effort to ukrainize UkraineI was not aware
Sure, a confederation that big needs an administrative language, but it was always my impression that there were those within the USSR's top brass that saw the USSR as basically a revival of the Russian Empire. Of course they wouldn't say it out loud but I was taught someplace or other that while yes the USSR did a lot of good in the republics there was also a sense that they were kinda "pets" to the Russians in a sense?? Idk. Maybe I'm totally off the mark. I know that towards the end of things the USSR got a lot more tolerant but ya. Not certain. You're the Russian here, tell me about it, if you know about it.
>Not that im trying to minimize the role of soldiers from smaller republic in the war though.No, I get it. It's a fun little what-if. I agree with you though, particularly Azerbaijan. A lot of ppl on this board probably already know about this but TONS of Muslims fought with or were sympathetic to the Axis, and I have no reason to think non-Soviet Azerbaijan would be any different. They'd probably figure Hitler was coming for them anyways and try to join to soften the blow.
>I guess America/Nato would just get a cultural victory so to speak like it did anyways, but sooner maybe.It's about more than culture. This is cold war NATO, baby. That means nuke silos in Kazakhstan. Fully militarized borders. No trade along the silk road, no connections to India, no Cuba, no nothing. If the SU went full NK, they'd probably be a little more successful, able to keep all of Russia's natural gas, for example, but they'd be surrounded on all sides and constantly fearing getting schnuked. CIA ops would be way way easier, and tbh a purely Slavic USSR would probably delegitimize communism forever, because the most prominent commie state was just ethnonationalism in disguise or somesuch.
Even then the idea of a Slavic USSR kinda falls onto its face if you know the first thing about Russian demographics. Do they just give up all the ethnic territories? Do they become their own countries? Is there an East and West Russia? Are they just second-class citizens? Sounds like a great way to get revolts - "Oh, you want to join our glorious red army, tovarisch? Yeah, well, you're from Nenets and your eyes are too slanted, so, fuck off." - because that will definitely not lead to revolt.
