Communism and Socialism megathread

[Constantinopolis]

Can someone explain to me what's with all the democratic socialists? Or radical leftism in general? Why is it appealing, why do you think it makes economic sense, why do you think it can actually work as well as our status quo society does.

Well, some people like the idea of equality for all. Some like the philosophy behind Marxism and or Anarchism. When I was a bit younger, I was a social democrat, and not a social democrat of the moderate third way variety either. Now, of course, I'm an unrepentant centre rightist.

Moving on, a lot of NS'ers are young. Now, I'm not saying that older communists don't exist, they do, and they're generally quite intelligent. People like 4Years, Therulizdian, Constantinopolis, and others come to mind. But, the younger NS'ers, those below the age of 15. They're probably most likely to view leftism as favorable, because teens are generally rather idealistic.

I would also like to point out that the sort of ideological outlook associated with youth is very different in different cultures. In the West, young people are usually more left-wing than the general population (although most young people are apathetic). However, in the country where I'm from - and which I prefer to keep anonymous - young people are usually more nationalist and right-wing than the general population. And this isn't a new development after 1989, either. It has been this way for a long time. Universities were major centers of support for fascism in the 1930s. Today they are major centers of support for both neoliberalism and ethnic nationalism.

It seems that each country has its own type of "youth culture", and sometimes a certain political outlook is associated with that culture.

(also, thank you for that comment about me and others)

[Confederate Ramenia]

Which is why you would make the military and the politicians be common working people. Hell, you advocate for workers' councils and a peoples' militia, this kind of thinking isn't new to you.

Yes, of course, but that can only be achieved through stateless direct democracy. Anarchism.

A society with a Weberian state inherently has a ruling class, the political elites or, in the case of the Soviet Union and other Vanguardist countries, the nomenklatura.

What definition of state and what definition of anarchism are we going by? Because stateless direct democracy seems a little oxymoronic, IMO, though a direct democracy (Swiss-style) could be nice.

[The New Sea Territory]

Yes, of course, but that can only be achieved through stateless direct democracy. Anarchism.

A society with a Weberian state inherently has a ruling class, the political elites or, in the case of the Soviet Union and other Vanguardist countries, the nomenklatura.

What definition of state and what definition of anarchism are we going by? Because stateless direct democracy seems a little oxymoronic, IMO, though a direct democracy (Swiss-style) could be nice.

The Weberian definition of the state (monopoly on violence) and the only definition of anarchism that has any philosophical credibility (a stateless form of government, based off the Weberian definition).

Stateless direct democracy is not an oxymoron. It is simply democracy without a monopoly in the initiation of force.

[Constantinopolis]

What definition of state and what definition of anarchism are we going by? Because stateless direct democracy seems a little oxymoronic, IMO, though a direct democracy (Swiss-style) could be nice.

The Weberian definition of the state (monopoly on violence) and the only definition of anarchism that has any philosophical credibility (a stateless form of government, based off the Weberian definition).

Stateless direct democracy is not an oxymoron. It is simply democracy without a monopoly in the initiation of force.

So what's to stop every side that loses a vote from simply refusing to carry out the decision of the majority?

Democracy requires that after a proposal is passed, that proposal applies to everyone, including the people who voted against it. You can't really have that without a monopoly in the initiation of force.

What you get in the absence of a monopoly in the initiation of force is at best a large number of independent groups each doing their own thing without coordinating with each other (because they disagree with each other and there is no final authority that can resolve disputes, so disagreements simply drag on forever), or at worst a large number of independent groups violently fighting each other (because, when there is no final authority to resolve disputes, often the only way to settle those disputes is to start shooting and see who wins).

And take note of the fact that the vast majority of recent historical examples of societies without a monopoly in the initiation of force have been of the second type.

[Constantinopolis]

The reason why anarchism (of whatever kind) is simply not feasible in a modern industrial society is because it is not possible to have a complex modern society where every dispute of every kind is resolved by negotiations and mutual agreement between the parties involved.

There are countless examples of situations where a mutually acceptable compromise is simply not possible. So either there needs to be an external authority with the power to enforce a settlement that upsets one party (or possibly both parties involved), or there will be no settlement, and society will break down in an endless string of unresolved disputes.

[Distruzio]

The reason why anarchism (of whatever kind) is simply not feasible in a modern industrial society is because it is not possible to have a complex modern society where every dispute of every kind is resolved by negotiations and mutual agreement between the parties involved.

There are countless examples of situations where a mutually acceptable compromise is simply not possible. So either there needs to be an external authority with the power to enforce a settlement that upsets one party (or possibly both parties involved), or there will be no settlement, and society will break down in an endless string of unresolved disputes.

Agreed.

[Southern Hampshire]

I wonder how many people would have trolled (or, scarily, been sincere) if you put fascism.
As I can't vote this, my answer is civil-rights lovefest.

There's many fascists on NSG.

For me personally it's more scary that people here have voted for their Maoist/Stalinist/Leninist/Marxist tendencies than fascists. But I guess that's where my rightness kicks in.

[The New Sea Territory]

For me personally it's more scary that people here have voted for their Maoist/Stalinist/Leninist/Marxist tendencies than fascists. But I guess that's where my rightness kicks in.

[Autonomous Titoists]

The reason why anarchism (of whatever kind) is simply not feasible in a modern industrial society is because it is not possible to have a complex modern society where every dispute of every kind is resolved by negotiations and mutual agreement between the parties involved.

There are countless examples of situations where a mutually acceptable compromise is simply not possible. So either there needs to be an external authority with the power to enforce a settlement that upsets one party (or possibly both parties involved), or there will be no settlement, and society will break down in an endless string of unresolved disputes.

Agreed.

There can be an outside authority but it doesn't have to be the state.
I don't want this to turn into anarchy can't work thread so let's not sit on this.

[Autonomous Titoists]

The Weberian definition of the state (monopoly on violence) and the only definition of anarchism that has any philosophical credibility (a stateless form of government, based off the Weberian definition).

Stateless direct democracy is not an oxymoron. It is simply democracy without a monopoly in the initiation of force.

So what's to stop every side that loses a vote from simply refusing to carry out the decision of the majority?

Democracy requires that after a proposal is passed, that proposal applies to everyone, including the people who voted against it. You can't really have that without a monopoly in the initiation of force.

What you get in the absence of a monopoly in the initiation of force is at best a large number of independent groups each doing their own thing without coordinating with each other (because they disagree with each other and there is no final authority that can resolve disputes, so disagreements simply drag on forever), or at worst a large number of independent groups violently fighting each other (because, when there is no final authority to resolve disputes, often the only way to settle those disputes is to start shooting and see who wins).

And take note of the fact that the vast majority of recent historical examples of societies without a monopoly in the initiation of force have been of the second type.

How are you communist? You seem very pro Authoritarian and pro state which in a communist society (ideally) there is no state, just worker run collectives.
If you say we can't work because there is no state you say your ideals can't work because there is no state there either.

[The New Sea Territory]

How are you communist? You seem very pro Authoritarian and pro state which in a communist society (ideally) there is no state, just worker run collectives.
If you say we can't work because there is no state you say your ideals can't work because there is no state there either.

We've been through this a dozen times. Anarchists tend to use the Weberian definition of "state" (monopoly of violence), while most other communists use the Marxian definition (instrument of class oppression, or something like that).

[Autonomous Titoists]

How are you communist? You seem very pro Authoritarian and pro state which in a communist society (ideally) there is no state, just worker run collectives.
If you say we can't work because there is no state you say your ideals can't work because there is no state there either.

We've been through this a dozen times. Anarchists tend to use the Weberian definition of "state" (monopoly of violence), while most other communists use the Marxian definition (instrument of class oppression, or something like that).

I wasn't here for that, but then that becomes who is master and who is slave whether it is worker on top or "typical bourgeois oppression."

[United Marxist Nations]

We've been through this a dozen times. Anarchists tend to use the Weberian definition of "state" (monopoly of violence), while most other communists use the Marxian definition (instrument of class oppression, or something like that).

I wasn't here for that, but then that becomes who is master and who is slave whether it is worker on top or "typical bourgeois oppression."

During the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the workers are indeed the working class; however, at some point, everyone would be a member of the working class, and thus, there would be no classes.

[To Quoc Duc]

I wasn't here for that, but then that becomes who is master and who is slave whether it is worker on top or "typical bourgeois oppression."

During the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the workers are indeed the working class; however, at some point, everyone would be a member of the working class, and thus, there would be no classes.

Unless it's a Maoist system in which there is no 'working class', only the peasantry.

Or it's the Hoxha system where everything is revisionism and nothing is real!

[United Marxist Nations]

During the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the workers are indeed the working class; however, at some point, everyone would be a member of the working class, and thus, there would be no classes.

Unless it's a Maoist system in which there is no 'working class', only the peasantry.

Or it's the Hoxha system where everything is revisionism and nothing is real!

Maoism can fuck right off.

Hoxha, on the other hand, was right about a lot of things.

[To Quoc Duc]

Unless it's a Maoist system in which there is no 'working class', only the peasantry.

Or it's the Hoxha system where everything is revisionism and nothing is real!

Maoism can fuck right off.

Hoxha, on the other hand, was right about a lot of things.

Hoxha was a terrible human being. Anyone who argues that freedom of the press is contrary to the interest of public order, and presides over a nation in which 1 in 3 Albanian people had been consigned to forced labor camps, is not someone I'd want to emulate. He was also a Maoist

[Arbolvine]

DEMSOC, WHOOOOOO!!!

[United Marxist Nations]

Maoism can fuck right off.

Hoxha, on the other hand, was right about a lot of things.

Hoxha was a terrible human being. Anyone who argues that freedom of the press is contrary to the interest of public order, and presides over a nation in which 1 in 3 Albanian people had been consigned to forced labor camps, is not someone I'd want to emulate. He was also a Maoist

1 in 3 had not been in labor camps, one in three had been either in a labor camp, or interviewed by police.

Also, he eliminated malaria, more than doubled the life expectancy, and hooked the entire country to electricity. Moreover, he ended the old feudal legal code that made women property. Also, he wasn't a Maoist, see: Sino-Albanian split.

[Autonomous Titoists]

I wasn't here for that, but then that becomes who is master and who is slave whether it is worker on top or "typical bourgeois oppression."

During the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the workers are indeed the working class; however, at some point, everyone would be a member of the working class, and thus, there would be no classes.

Yes but it never works like that because the state always go haha fuck you guys I'm keeping power and if you disagree GET IN THE TRENCH!!!!!Comrade.
How can there be a Dictatorship of the Proletariat if 1.) People in power aren't Proletarians, 2.) Once in control they would ultimately be better than other peopel because they make the rules and decide who goes in the trench and who is horribly oppressed until the day they die.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat just seems ridiculous because dictatorships are 1 single person meaning either 1 person owns runs, and lives in their little statehoods, or there is distinctive classes and the people on top fuck the people on bottom.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Maoism can fuck right off.

Hoxha, on the other hand, was right about a lot of things.

Hoxha was a terrible human being. Anyone who argues that freedom of the press is contrary to the interest of public order, and presides over a nation in which 1 in 3 Albanian people had been consigned to forced labor camps, is not someone I'd want to emulate. He was also a Maoist

Sure he might have been a terrible human being, but he was a terrible human being with bunkers.

[Conscentia]

[...] To say that the relationship between a politician and a commoner is not a form of class struggle, or conflicting class interests, would defeat the point of the term "class struggle".

Implying that politicians are always non-commoners.

[United Marxist Nations]

During the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the workers are indeed the working class; however, at some point, everyone would be a member of the working class, and thus, there would be no classes.

Yes but it never works like that because the state always go haha fuck you guys I'm keeping power and if you disagree GET IN THE TRENCH!!!!!Comrade.
How can there be a Dictatorship of the Proletariat if 1.) People in power aren't Proletarians, 2.) Once in control they would ultimately be better than other peopel because they make the rules and decide who goes in the trench and who is horribly oppressed until the day they die.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat just seems ridiculous because dictatorships are 1 single person meaning either 1 person owns runs, and lives in their little statehoods, or there is distinctive classes and the people on top fuck the people on bottom.

Actually, it isn't, because there wasn't a dictatorship of the proletariat due to all the proto-socialist countries having began with no large proletariat having existed in the first place. Had those revolutions happened in industrially developed countries, they would have become DotP. Also, the term isn't meant to be literal, the "dictatorship" is a metaphor.

[Revanta]

I kind of missed Titoism as an option...but well...somehow there are not that many communistic theories, but actually a lot of those who defend socialism - and in fact, I really dislike socialism.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I kind of missed Titoism as an option...but well...somehow there are not that many communistic theories, but actually a lot of those who defend socialism - and in fact, I really dislike socialism.

Why is that?

[Dejanic]

Maoism can fuck right off.

Hoxha, on the other hand, was right about a lot of things.

Hoxha was a terrible human being. Anyone who argues that freedom of the press is contrary to the interest of public order, and presides over a nation in which 1 in 3 Albanian people had been consigned to forced labor camps, is not someone I'd want to emulate. He was also a Maoist

I'd agree that Hoxha was a terrible human being. But to equate Hoxhaism with Maoism is wrong. Hoxhaism was basically a reaction against Maoism, since Maoism broke pretty much every core tenant of Leninism and Marxism, and Hoxha was a staunch anti revisionist.