Communism and Socialism megathread

[United Marxist Nations]

Even the USSR under the harshest years of Stalin wasn't as absurd as North Korea, and everyone forgets that Stalin let up, and that the USSR even further let up after he died.

I'm not saying that the Stalin era was particularly bad, but that it was a totalitarianism that was not fascism.
Mostly, the point is that you dun gotta be hitler or mussolini to set up a secret police and concentration camps, since any state of any political stripe is fully capable of doing so and justifying it.

Yes, he wasn't fascist, but mentioning that would only be relevant if the only requirement he gave was totalitarianism.

[Bojikami]

Marxist-Leninist here.

[Communist KMT]

[*]

[Kubra]

I'm not saying that the Stalin era was particularly bad, but that it was a totalitarianism that was not fascism.
Mostly, the point is that you dun gotta be hitler or mussolini to set up a secret police and concentration camps, since any state of any political stripe is fully capable of doing so and justifying it.

Yes, he wasn't fascist, but mentioning that would only be relevant if the only requirement he gave was totalitarianism.

it was also militarism and nationalism, which the USSR (as well as China, which may have done so to a greater degree than the USSR, especially in the context of North Korea) also had and propagated throughout its sphere of influence, and which was present in the workers movement before there was a USSR, and present in society before there was a workers movement.
militarism+nationalism+totalitarianism isn't a hard combination to follow, plenty of (if not all) non-fascist states and empires had/has some combination of the three to varying degrees, and therefore "fascism" is something else.

[Distruzio]

Even the USSR under the harshest years of Stalin wasn't as absurd as North Korea, and everyone forgets that Stalin let up, and that the USSR even further let up after he died.

Quite the contrary. As much as I find Stalin repulsive, his inevitable relenting is a silver lining in my opinion.

Now if only I could finally sever the internal link between Communism and anti-theism that sticks in my craw because of the Stalinist policies towards Christians. Constantionopolis has done his best to help me along this path but.... bitches be stubborn.

[United Marxist Nations]

Yes, he wasn't fascist, but mentioning that would only be relevant if the only requirement he gave was totalitarianism.

it was also militarism and nationalism, which the USSR (as well as China, which may have done so to a greater degree than the USSR, especially in the context of North Korea) also had and propagated throughout its sphere of influence, and which was present in the workers movement before there was a USSR, and present in society before there was a workers movement.
militarism+nationalism+totalitarianism isn't a hard combination to follow, plenty of (if not all) non-fascist states and empires had/has some combination of the three to varying degrees, and therefore "fascism" is something else.

Militarism: different context due to the fact that the USSR spent most of its existence either in a massive war or on the brink of a massive war; DPRK, regardless of what they say, has not been under such threat.

The USSR was inherently anti-nationalist; only 51% of its population was of any one nationality, and the USSR deliberately divided itself into separate nations to reflect the reality of the national situation (e.g. RSFSR, Ukr SSR , etc.). Moreover, the USSR tried to create an entirely new nation based on a proletarian culture, not glorify the current ones.

[Rostogovia]

Deleted post

[Rostogovia]

Then how come Amnesty International, The UN, The Human Rights Watch, and innumerable other NON PROFIT organizations have openly condemned its crimes? North Korea tried time and time again to deceive the international community, and thus should not be trusted by anyone in their right mind. When their not digging invasion tunnels or kidnapping Japanese civilians, their making excuses.

Now let me address your comment concerning defectors, "These defectors usually defected for one reason, a family member had committed a crime and went to prison for it.I know, that's pretty brutal, but stay with me..." Hold up,that right there is enough to condemn the DPRK!

How come you can't use "they're"?

But in all seriousness, did you really just cite the UN as a non profit organisation, my gosh. You realise all those groups have ulterior motives other than money, right? There is such a thing as using and spreading misinformation to sway public opinion for or against something, in the case of all these gangs groups, it's to justify the horrific sanctions placed on the DPRK to try and starve them out of existence.

Also, "'a family member had committed a crime and went to prison for it.I know, that's pretty brutal, but stay with me...' Hold up,that right there is enough to condemn the DPRK!"

You realise what you just said, right? Someone committed a CRIME and for that they went to PRISON. I'm pretty sure that's quite commonplace, and not something you use to condemn a nation.

Sorry, my bad. I thought you were referring to guilt by family association. (Which by the way is a widespread judicial practice in the north.)

[Bolnoa]

It's all about that Vietnam though.

[Conscentia]

Let us then weigh the charges of fascism by using the words of the fascist of all fascist states - the DPRK!
On militarism, the DPR takes a stance of self defence
from their official webpage, http://korea-dpr.com/songun.html, on songun (military-first) politics:

In the 1990s, there came to be a great change in political composition of the world and the balance of forces. The US and the imperialist reactionary forces intensified imprecedent military aggressive manoeuvres to stifle the country, thus laying obstacles in the way of Korean revolution.
General Kim Jong Il, based on a scientific analysis of the changed situation, declared at home and abroad that the politics of DPR Korea is Songun politics and established full the mode of Songun politics. At the first session of the 10th Supreme People's Assembly of the DPRK in September Juche 87 (1998), a new system of state mechanism was made with the National Defence Commission as in the focus. It is like this, that the Songun politics of the party is the main political mode of socialism which has begun in the era of President Kim Il Sung and systemized in the hardest time of history.
General Kim Jong Il determined that the line of the Songun revolution be held fast to as long as the enemies survive and their aggressive attempts continue. He has unfolded the Songun politics and defended socialism with the might of the Songun politics and advanced the independent cause of the mankind.

Ergo, the official line is that militarism is a matter of defending oneself from imperialist aggression, rather than militarism for itself, which is at odds with Mussolini here.

In regards to the state
http://www.korea-dpr.com/juche_ideology.html

The socialist system of the Republic is a people-centred social system in which the masses of the working people are the masters of everything and everything in society serves them. In accordance with the nature of its socialist system, the Government of the Republic defends and protects the interests of workers, peasants and intellectuals and all other working people who have become masters of state and society, free from exploitation and oppression.

no outwardly leftist party or state or whatever would dare say that power is derived from anywhere other than "the masses". Officially, the state is subordinate to the people, rather than the other way around.

I mean cmon bro the USSR was getting its totalitarianism thing going before any of the properly fascist parties had any state power to speak of. Shouldn't our leftist brand of totalitarianism be given the recognition it deserves, rather than being slapped with the fascist label?

In regards to my signature, lol dem fools can talk the talk but they can't kaut the kaut -sky.

Mussolini didn't claim that militarism was for itself. Fascists have their reasons for supporting militarism. The fact is that songun firmly establishes the DPRK as a militaristic regime.

As for their official line being about being for "the masses", fascism was a populist movement - it was all about the volk.
And why would you buy their official line anyway? They claim to be protecting the people from oppression - we all know that's not true.

The term "totalitarianism" was coined to describe the Italian fascists. Just because the Soviets got to build their regime first doesn't change that.
Additionally, totalitarianism was never part of the Marxist-Leninist ideology the USSR officially adhered to. The regime was simply corrupt and run by a paranoid autocrat, resulting in totalitarianism. This is not true of fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, or the juche DPRK - all of which enshrine total obedience to the leader in their official ideologies. (See: The DPRK's "Great Leader" Theory)

[Kubra]

Militarism: different context due to the fact that the USSR spent most of its existence either in a massive war or on the brink of a massive war; DPRK, regardless of what they say, has not been under such threat.

The USSR was inherently anti-nationalist; only 51% of its population was of any one nationality, and the USSR deliberately divided itself into separate nations to reflect the reality of the national situation (e.g. RSFSR, Ukr SSR , etc.). Moreover, the USSR tried to create an entirely new nation based on a proletarian culture, not glorify the current ones.

Real threat or imagined, militarism is militarism. There is, for instance, no real reason to parade military hardware during a may day except as a celebration of arms. That's str8 militarism, bruh.

On the matter of Nationalism, not organizing as a single SSR and organizing as ethno-national SSR's was, well, nationalism, which was further showcased by the formation of the warsaw pact, rather than integration into the USSR proper. Stalin, in the victory speech after the German surrender, characterized the war (named 'the great patriotic war' about as melodramatic though not quite so to the degree of 'holy war' by the bukharinites, and, well, more nationalistic) as a struggle for the existence of the slavic people. Pan nationalism is the sort practiced by North Korea, which characterizes itself not as the state that ought to govern north koreans (who are, at this point, a distinctly different national group than the south koreans) but all koreans both in the peninsula and abroad. In the later victory speech after the surrender of Japan, ills from the times of the tsarists were aired out as grievances, as if conflict between imperialist powers (for which Russia was really the strongest imperialist of the two) had any meaning to the USSR, which was to be the country representing the world proletariat, rather than a historical nationality. It is from this basis that the later support of explicit national liberation movements in the post-war years finds its historical justification.

Mussolini didn't claim that militarism was for itself. Fascists have their reasons for supporting militarism. The fact is that songun firmly establishes the DPRK as a militaristic regime.

As for their official line being about being for "the masses", fascism was a populist movement - it was all about the volk.
And why would you buy their official line anyway? They claim to be protecting the people from oppression - we all know that's not true.

The term "totalitarianism" was coined to describe the Italian fascists. Just because the Soviets got to build their regime first doesn't change that.
Additionally, totalitarianism was never part of the Marxist-Leninist ideology the USSR officially adhered to. The regime was simply corrupt and run by a paranoid autocrat, resulting in totalitarianism. This is not true of fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, or the juche DPRK - all of which enshrine total obedience to the leader in their official ideologies. (See: The DPRK's "Great Leader" Theory)

Didn't he?
"War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it."
That's war for its own sake, bruh. That's at odds with the official songun line of self-defense against imperialism.

In regards to the masses, fascism may ascribe to a people genetic or ethnic superiority, but it cannot therefore give it political supremacy. Bolshevism, at least, did not abolish inner-party democracy, nor could it publicly disdain democracy other than bourgeoisie democracy. In regards to Korea, I can find no written repudiation of democratic centralism, and plenty of overtures to democracy. We won't worry ourselves about the actual democratic content of North Korea, we both know its farcical nature, but it's worth noting the official line, as this contradiction is important in our distinguishing of the two totalitarianisms. It is true that the Soviet Union never called itself totalitarianism, and there is a reason for that.

Fascism does not contradict itself. If it is barbaric, it says it is barbaric; if it wants to exterminate a people, it will write that the people ought to be exterminated "like bedbugs" (a not so subtle gas reference). There is no distinction between line and its enactment. Where it adhered to common tradition, it did so insofar as old tradition was barbaric in the first place. The totalitarianism that came out of the soviet union and later became the de-facto model for later left totalitarianisms (reaching its highest expression, or perhaps its funniest sketch, as North Korea) is one in which what is said must be distinguished between what is done, what is done justifies itself on the grounds that it's merely temporal, awaiting the next historical stage, and so on. Its historical tradition is newer, but far more rigid, both ideologically and even perhaps ethically, and therefore where it breaks with this tradition it must do so only after absolutely ensuring that everyone knows that it means it for the right reasons. These contradictions create differences between them and overtly fascist regimes in terms of organization and scope. For instance, Korea can justify itself in a war against South Korea for the purposed of annexation ("reunification") and take anywhere else with a sizeable korean population or a historical territorial claim, but if it ever were to conquer that amount of space it would hit a dead end. It could not take on a properly imperialist project because there would be no way for it write about it without, say, declaring itself the representative of the world proletariat, which would be difficult, given its location. The Soviet Union, for instance, even as the representative could not itself take on such imperialist projects, and confined itself to expanding its sphere of influence through national liberation movements worldwide.

[Udinia]

Actually, Fascism doesn't do war for war's sake. Fascism exalted war as an expression of
man's vitality and willingness to survive. A national struggle was viewed not as two groups of people fighting but two distinct collective organisms.

[The New Sea Territory]

Actually, Fascism doesn't do war for war's sake. Fascism exalted war as an expression of
man's vitality and willingness to survive. A national struggle was viewed not as two groups of people fighting but two distinct collective organisms.

Or, through the propaganda, the practical reason that most fascist economies were based on war. Nazi Germany's economy was based on invading other countries, raping them of their resources, then exploiting their cheap labor. If they didn't go to war and win, the economy would implode.

[Ndaku]

Perhaps a libertarian socialist.

[The New Sea Territory]

Perhaps a libertarian socialist.

[Ndaku]

Perhaps a libertarian socialist.

Hehe

[Lucasaer]

Hello

[The New Sea Territory]

Hehe

What kind of libertarian socialist are you? Libertarian Marxist, Communalist, Anarchist, etc?

[Ndaku]

Hehe

What kind of libertarian socialist are you? Libertarian Marxist, Communalist, Anarchist, etc?

I'll be totally honest with you; I do not know. Recently after studying socialism/communism in my US history class I came in accord with some of its principles about financial/economical equality. Ideologies and politics are one of those things I would personally prefer to study/learn slowly; I have a very broad view on this stuff. Eventually I'll discover what type of socialist I am

[Udinia]

Actually, Fascism doesn't do war for war's sake. Fascism exalted war as an expression of
man's vitality and willingness to survive. A national struggle was viewed not as two groups of people fighting but two distinct collective organisms.

Or, through the propaganda, the practical reason that most fascist economies were based on war. Nazi Germany's economy was based on invading other countries, raping them of their resources, then exploiting their cheap labor. If they didn't go to war and win, the economy would implode.

All very true, the fascists were wretched degenerate capitalists after all.

[United Marxist Nations]

What kind of libertarian socialist are you? Libertarian Marxist, Communalist, Anarchist, etc?

I'll be totally honest with you; I do not know. Recently after studying socialism/communism in my US history class I came in accord with some of its principles about financial/economical equality. Ideologies and politics are one of those things I would personally prefer to study/learn slowly; I have a very broad view on this stuff. Eventually I'll discover what type of socialist I am

Then I would say you've come to a pretty good place. Not to say we are all terrible at helping people learn.

[Ndaku]

I'll be totally honest with you; I do not know. Recently after studying socialism/communism in my US history class I came in accord with some of its principles about financial/economical equality. Ideologies and politics are one of those things I would personally prefer to study/learn slowly; I have a very broad view on this stuff. Eventually I'll discover what type of socialist I am

Then I would say you've come to a pretty good place. Not to say we are all terrible at helping people learn.

Awesome! I have a list on certain topics in the General forum that I find pretty interesting. Looks like I add this one

[United Marxist Nations]

Then I would say you've come to a pretty good place. Not to say we are all terrible at helping people learn.

Awesome! I have a list on certain topics in the General forum that I find pretty interesting. Looks like I add this one

Glad to hear.

[The New Sea Territory]

What kind of libertarian socialist are you? Libertarian Marxist, Communalist, Anarchist, etc?

I'll be totally honest with you; I do not know. Recently after studying socialism/communism in my US history class I came in accord with some of its principles about financial/economical equality. Ideologies and politics are one of those things I would personally prefer to study/learn slowly; I have a very broad view on this stuff. Eventually I'll discover what type of socialist I am

A good introduction to Libertarian Socialism:

Libertarian Socialist Rants

Also, the wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

[Udinia]

What kind of libertarian socialist are you? Libertarian Marxist, Communalist, Anarchist, etc?

I'll be totally honest with you; I do not know. Recently after studying socialism/communism in my US history class I came in accord with some of its principles about financial/economical equality. Ideologies and politics are one of those things I would personally prefer to study/learn slowly; I have a very broad view on this stuff. Eventually I'll discover what type of socialist I am

Tip*: If you are serious about learning about socialism, forget everything about it you've been taught in all your years of "education". All your schooling is liberal-capitalist propaganda inteded to poison your mind with bourgeois degeneracy and maintain your ignorance about the proletariat's current vegetative state. Start as a clean slate, and allow socialism to embrace you.