did you know that Adolf Hitler was born in Idaho, US and was put in power in Germany by FDR?
and 100 more false factoids!
this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
175 points (84.6% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
3168 readers
500 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.
Introduction to Socialism (external links)
Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Advanced Course
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Woops, this aint Lemmy.ml so you cant ban all the replies fact checking your misinfo
While Soviets had no money so they didn't need bank accounts.
In Soviet Russia, bank account opens you!
Women were allowed to vote in the US before anyone was allowed to vote in the USSR.
The working class was able to vote in election once the Tsars were removed, and the ballot extended to the bourgeoisie and land owners in 1937
Remind me how many parties they could vote for?
They didn't vote for parties. Elections happened at a local level where people knew candidates personally. Elected local councils ('soviets') would then elect members to higher councils in a 'tiered' system, all the way up to the supreme soviet.
A good-faith criticism of this model might be that it has a high degree of inertia, in that it may respond slowly to sudden changes in popular opinion.
So the Bolsheviks weren't the dominant party that eliminated all the others after they won the Civil War?
And remind me what happened to public figures who spoke against the premier in any way? I'm sure nobody complained because they loved the government so much that they'd never say a bad word about it...
Yes, that's right. The point I'm making is that elections worked very differently to the party politics people are used to, with an emphasis on people personally knowing their representatives. To the average voter, the bolshevik party wasn't very relevant when they were choosing between two guys who lived on their street.
And what happened when those representatives disagreed with the inner circle?
They in turn elected candidates to put forth their disagreement
Again, what happened to high-ranking politicians who openly expressed disagreement with the premier and his cabinet?
Could you cite some specific examples of what you lre talking about?
Can you find any records of USSR politicians criticizing high-level government figures without consequence?
I think, there were some more events, and maybe they involved elections, too. And after that all the other parties were eliminated, because it turned out that it's easier to rule when there's no other options
Because eliminating representatives who might disagree with you is much more democratic than allowing a multiple party system.
But can they vote in USA in 2028?
Is there talk within the legislature to repeal the 19th Amendment? I will bet you literally any amount of money that women will be able to vote in 2028.
Seriously who gives a fuck about space and banking when you have porn? Which in fact was legalised in Denmark as the first country in the whole world! Now that’s progressive!
https://femmefrugality.com/myth-busting-womens-banking/
It's a funny myth but not true. Women were doing their own banking in America as far back as the 1700sm I'm not super up on my Soviet space programs but I think that's a few years earlier.
Just one random counter example: wiki/First Women's Bank (New York):
It opened in 1975 and was part of a broader movement to address the financial needs of women who faced barriers in obtaining credit and financial services from traditional banks.
There was enough of a need for this 50 years ago that it made literal capitalist financial interest to make it happen.
Financial freedom in a modern word can be privileged (but absolutely essential for actual survival) and groups (like women, ie half of humanity) can be denied the necessities. If a women needs a man's signature to get a loan, have a credit card, or even open a banking account, they are not free from that man. And that (one aspect) really changed only in the 80s (slowly & with newer gens).
Saying some women had bank amounts in the 1700s is like saying "land of the free" in reference to USA (at any point in history actually).
Or saying how racism in USA ended with a (any) specific law.
The "meme" is still funny in comparing a basic necessity for a majority vs bcs ofc not a notable % of any human groups have been to space (even including billionaires).
If a women needs a man’s signature to get a loan, have a credit card, or even open a banking account, they are not free from that man. And that (one aspect) really changed only in the 80s (slowly & with newer gens).
If you read the article, you'd know that in general this was usually the case way farther back than the 70s.
Yes, there were more gaps but it's far from what the meme implies.
The meme also implies that USSR women had access to space. Both ends of the meme are not a strictly accurate comparison, just a "funny" way of saying that women in USA didn't have universal access to banking guaranteed by a country-wide law up until the space race.
To each their own.
I would also point out that it's incredibly unlikely any women critical of the Party, or with husbands who were critical of the Party, were allowed to be astronauts.
So, I felt some context to demonstrate that American women had been banking for a hundred+ years by the time there were Soviet astronauts.
Exactly.
A bit like saying North Koreans have nuclear weapons while black ppl in USA are discriminated against.
While it is a fact, it's also clear that the situation in USA is a bit better than 200 years ago whilst the average DPRKean does in fact not have access to a nuclear weapon.
I don't think ppl on Lemmy would think no woman in USA had a bank account prior to the (19)70s. Just as they wouldn't think USSR shipped millions of female tourists to space.
I don’t think ppl on Lemmy would think no woman in USA had a bank account prior to the (19)70s.
You have more faith than I do. Right now, someone is explaining to me in another thread how donald trump is actually part of a deep conspiracy with the Dems to keep elections electronic so they can both rig them...
People are really dumb.
And the link I posted does not at any point say that all women had access to all banking forever, simply that there is a lot of context that's missed by claims like this, that come up reasonably frequently.
It's a good link, busting the myth clearly and with good sources.
However:
1862: First state (California) allows women to open bank accounts regardless of marital status.
But that's still a century before female cosmonauts, so I'm just being pernicketty really.
I love and encourage persnicketiness!
I also feel that technically, at least according to the source, my comment is correct.
As the piece notes:
Women could participate in the economy — including banking — in Colonial America.
To me, this meets the "American women could open a bank account" criteria but that's just my opinion and one with which reasonable people can disagree.
Though, the piece's source gets delightfully snarky about it:
Though a small percentage of all bank customers, women held accounts in many northeastern banks in the early national period, a fact that apparently has eluded business and women's historians alike.
Your are indeed technically correct (but I maintain that as the worst kind of correct, who trusts bureaucrats?), but the added information that that section details as once/if women married, their finances, assets, bank accounts became their husbands.
So while unmarried and widowed women could do banking, meaning that women could - social pressure and expectations made it difficult to impossible for the majority of most women's lives.
You are correct in the bar of "a certain subset of >1 women could open bank accounts" was true for, potentially the entire history of banking in the US/thirteen colonies. (When was the first settler bank set up in N. America? Probably a Spanish one in the Caribbean, but British people probably didn't use that one.)
We are mostly in agreement, just drawing the line either when first crossed (fair and valid) or when all could cross (racial discrimination aside (and that's a big aside)).
Salutations and respect to a fellow lover and encourager of persnicketiness.
but I maintain that as the worst kind of correct, who trusts bureaucrats?
Love it!
Yup, you make great points. I just think that if the comparator on the other side is "women in space" we're not talking about a large percentage of the population. (Though, an admittedly fair perspective is the number of women as a share of the total people in space.)
I'd foolishly overlooked the considerations of what kind of line was drawn on the space side. That's a really good point.
Thanks for the polite, pernicketty, chat.
Thanks for the polite, pernicketty, chat.
Likewise!
Honestly, for what it's worth, folks like you are what give me hope for the Fediverse. So, thank you.
While this isn't true for the US, it is true for Switzerland. Valentina Tereshkova went to space in 1963, while Swiss Women's Suffrage was established by a referendum in 1971.
Wrong comm?