NationStates

Valrifell wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Socialists were never particularly good at attracting the rural working class to their cause.

He said, looking over the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the whole concept of the Khmer Rouge.

Both were terrible, deadly mistakes, particularly the Khmer Rouge.

Pasong Tirad wrote:

Fahran wrote:There's also the perception that leftists have no regard for the values and traditions of agrarian communities. Fascists specifically appeal to those things while retaining a populist facade. They're still losing out to conservatives, of course, mostly due to the cult of the rugged individual and an instinctual mistrust of government, but they have gaps to exploit. The perceived middle-class and urban character of Antifa and socialist groups stymie their cause as well, at least in the rural regions of the country.

That may be true in the West, but in less developed corners of the globe left-wing groups have a lot of influence and support from rural groups, particularly in countries where peasants are routinely oppressed by central governments.

Only in certain parts of the West. Mainly only in North America and parts of Western Europe.

It's quite a story how Right-Wing groups have been able to gain the support and exploit poor workers, despite the fact that they're constantly making policies to screw them over.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
He said, looking over the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the whole concept of the Khmer Rouge.

Both were terrible, deadly mistakes, particularly the Khmer Rouge.

Yeah but that's not the point. Where did these left-wing revolutions get their support? The rural peasantry.

Pasong Tirad wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Both were terrible, deadly mistakes, particularly the Khmer Rouge.

Yeah but that's not the point. Where did these left-wing revolutions get their support? The rural peasantry.

In Europe and North America however, socialist movements were largely based in urban or industrial areas, with rural folk falling mostly behind conservative leadership.

Fahran wrote:

Torrocca wrote:Red Scare tactics and the mere existence of post-USSR tankies don't really help leftists in securing rural camaraderie, to be fair.

There's also the perception that leftists have no regard for the values and traditions of agrarian communities. Fascists specifically appeal to those things while retaining a populist facade. They're still losing out to conservatives, of course, mostly due to the cult of the rugged individual and an instinctual mistrust of government, but they have gaps to exploit. The perceived middle-class and urban character of Antifa and socialist groups stymie their cause as well, at least in the rural regions of the country.

Maybe in the West, of course.

Elsewhere? Not so much.

Pasong Tirad wrote:That may be true in the West, but in less developed corners of the globe left-wing groups have a lot of influence and support from rural groups, particularly in countries where peasants are routinely oppressed by central governments.

You have a point to an extent, but I wouldn't describe most of those socialist groups as orthodox leftists in some cases. You have groups like the Zapatistas and PKK (and its splinter groups) that combine a sort of indigenous nationalism with striving towards more commonly recognized themes in leftism - such as atheism, feminism, proletarian struggle, and collective ownership of the means of production. These are often tailored to fit the traditional modes of being though. Some left-wing movements, especially in parts of Latin America, also have socially conservative tendencies. Not really a rarity, but it's important to note when we're contrasting them with their western counterparts. How many westerners would support Islamic socialism, really?

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Pasong Tirad wrote:Yeah but that's not the point. Where did these left-wing revolutions get their support? The rural peasantry.

In Europe and North America however, socialist movements were largely based in urban or industrial areas, with rural folk falling mostly behind conservative leadership.

Which undermines your point of how:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:Socialists were never particularly good at attracting the rural working class to their cause.

Fahran wrote:

Pasong Tirad wrote:That may be true in the West, but in less developed corners of the globe left-wing groups have a lot of influence and support from rural groups, particularly in countries where peasants are routinely oppressed by central governments.

You have a point to an extent, but I wouldn't describe most of those socialist groups as orthodox leftists in some cases. You have groups like the Zapatistas and PKK (and its splinter groups) that combine a sort of indigenous nationalism with striving towards more commonly recognized themes in leftism - such as atheism, feminism, proletarian struggle, and collective ownership of the means of production. These are often tailored to fit the traditional modes of being though. Some left-wing movements, especially in parts of Latin America, also have socially conservative tendencies. Not really a rarity, but it's important to note when we're contrasting them with their western counterparts. How many westerners would support Islamic socialism, really?

Wasn't really concerned with "orthodox leftism," really, but yes there is a great contrast between left-wing movements in the more developed corners of the world than in the developing world. Catholicism and Maoist communism have fused together for the CPP-NPA-NDF, for example, since any attempt to separate the faith of the peasantry with the struggle for national democracy (a euphemism Philippine communists use for state socialism) would be disastrous given the high levels of religiosity in my country - as an example.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Pasong Tirad wrote:Yeah but that's not the point. Where did these left-wing revolutions get their support? The rural peasantry.

In Europe and North America however, socialist movements were largely based in urban or industrial areas, with rural folk falling mostly behind conservative leadership.

Alexa, who is William Jennings Bryan?

I know it's a stretch to call him a Socialist, but he did navigate the creation of a functioning farmer-labor bloc. Plus there's the Populist Party. Shame his own party actively worked against him.

Duvniask wrote:This one. I'm using the generally accepted criteria of what constitutes a capitalist system, as distinct from other socio-economic systems. This is the one Marx and Engels arrived at in their analysis.

What about you? It seems like you just arbitrarily decided that competition (along supply and demand) was the central feature of capitalism, so that monopoly capitalism couldn't possibly exist.

"Socialists are allowed to define socialism but capitalists aren't allowed to define capitalism."
Competition is one of the central features, yes. Property rights are another. You are not using the generally-accepted criteria, only a Marxist interpretation.

Whereas Western capitalism largely eliminates (but doesn't downright kill) small business owners through competition, monopolization, purchase, etc., the Soviet Union took the violent state-sponsored approach, seizing small business and bringing them into the state; this effectively meant making them part of capital on the national level. It killed small capitalists in service of the universal capitalist state.

To the contrary, small businesses vastly outnumber their larger counterparts.

Words mean nothing, I see.

To you, yes.

Torrocca wrote:

Aellex wrote:Didn't you say you were studying to become a nurse or doctor or something?
I doubt you're gonna achieve that doing an apprenticeship.

I'm in a community (read: c o m m u n i t y) college, not a university.

I mean, even if you were going to a university, that wouldn't make you not poor. The ruling class is all too eager to play loan shark for poor kids wanting to go to college.

Grenartia wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
I'm in a community (read: c o m m u n i t y) college, not a university.

I mean, even if you were going to a university, that wouldn't make you not poor. The ruling class is all too eager to play loan shark for poor kids wanting to go to college.

This is also very true.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:Finally, Harry Potter becomes more than just liberal shit.

Liberals: *calls for gun bans*

Rightists: "wtf bro thats bad"

Actual leftists: "wtf i agree with the conservatives now"[/quote]

What about collectivists conservatives who oppose private gun ownership?

Valrifell wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
In Europe and North America however, socialist movements were largely based in urban or industrial areas, with rural folk falling mostly behind conservative leadership.

Alexa, who is William Jennings Bryan?

I know it's a stretch to call him a Socialist, but he did navigate the creation of a functioning farmer-labor bloc. Plus there's the Populist Party. Shame his own party actively worked against him.

Bryan was a wonderful man. Too bad he never became president.

Bienenhalde wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Alexa, who is William Jennings Bryan?

I know it's a stretch to call him a Socialist, but he did navigate the creation of a functioning farmer-labor bloc. Plus there's the Populist Party. Shame his own party actively worked against him.

Bryan was a wonderful man. Too bad he never became president.

He was also an anti-imperialist. Bless him.

Pasong Tirad wrote:

Bienenhalde wrote:
Bryan was a wonderful man. Too bad he never became president.

He was also an anti-imperialist. Bless him.

Instead we got McKinley because Americans are a self-loathing lot.

Valrifell wrote:

Pasong Tirad wrote:He was also an anti-imperialist. Bless him.

Instead we got McKinley because Americans are a self-loathing lot.

McKinley is one of our finest and he did nothing wrong ever.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Instead we got McKinley because Americans are a self-loathing lot.

McKinley is one of our finest and he did nothing wrong ever.

McKinley? Teddy's whipping boy?
Buddy, it weren't McKinley making foreign policy.

Kubra wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:McKinley is one of our finest and he did nothing wrong ever.

McKinley? Teddy's whipping boy?
Buddy, it weren't McKinley making foreign policy.

Spain had it coming.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Kubra wrote: McKinley? Teddy's whipping boy?
Buddy, it weren't McKinley making foreign policy.

Spain had it coming.

Well, I mean, yeah.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Kubra wrote: McKinley? Teddy's whipping boy?
Buddy, it weren't McKinley making foreign policy.

Spain had it coming.

Sure, that was a good move on Teddy's part, McKinley is lucky to have been along for the ride.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Duvniask wrote:This one. I'm using the generally accepted criteria of what constitutes a capitalist system, as distinct from other socio-economic systems. This is the one Marx and Engels arrived at in their analysis.

What about you? It seems like you just arbitrarily decided that competition (along supply and demand) was the central feature of capitalism, so that monopoly capitalism couldn't possibly exist.

"Socialists are allowed to define socialism but capitalists aren't allowed to define capitalism."
Competition is one of the central features, yes. Property rights are another. You are not using the generally-accepted criteria, only a Marxist interpretation.

Whereas Western capitalism largely eliminates (but doesn't downright kill) small business owners through competition, monopolization, purchase, etc., the Soviet Union took the violent state-sponsored approach, seizing small business and bringing them into the state; this effectively meant making them part of capital on the national level. It killed small capitalists in service of the universal capitalist state.

To the contrary, small businesses vastly outnumber their larger counterparts.

Words mean nothing, I see.

To you, yes.

NB in a true market anarchist society (whatever you call it, anarcho-'capitalist' or mutualist), property rights would be much more fluid and stringent. In order for these rights to be respected, you would have to work the land and not inherit it from some long dead ancestor whose only right was squatting on the land first. This also goes for large corporations who had been around for years.

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:"Socialists are allowed to define socialism but capitalists aren't allowed to define capitalism."
Competition is one of the central features, yes. Property rights are another. You are not using the generally-accepted criteria, only a Marxist interpretation.

To the contrary, small businesses vastly outnumber their larger counterparts.

To you, yes.

NB in a true market anarchist society (whatever you call it, anarcho-'capitalist' or mutualist), property rights would be much more fluid and stringent. In order for these rights to be respected, you would have to work the land and not inherit it from some long dead ancestor whose only right was squatting on the land first. This also goes for large corporations who had been around for years.

Or would they?

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:
NB in a true market anarchist society (whatever you call it, anarcho-'capitalist' or mutualist), property rights would be much more fluid and stringent. In order for these rights to be respected, you would have to work the land and not inherit it from some long dead ancestor whose only right was squatting on the land first. This also goes for large corporations who had been around for years.

Or would they?

Probably not, as you need a fairly strong monopoly of force to sustain a similarly strong property rights regime. This is what many non-anarchist libertarians tend to forget, and then wonder why there is so much abuse in the way of civil asset forfeiture and other things.

Bienenhalde wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:Finally, Harry Potter becomes more than just liberal shit.

Liberals: *calls for gun bans*

Rightists: "wtf bro thats bad"

Actual leftists: "wtf i agree with the conservatives now"

What about collectivists conservatives who oppose private gun ownership?[/quote]

I have never ever heard of those.