NATION

PASSWORD

Left-Wing Discussion Thread

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

What kind of Leftist are you?

Centrist/Moderate/Third wayer (Centrists usually reside within Leftist parties, so I thought I'd include them).
279
13%
Social Liberal
259
12%
Social Democrat
338
16%
Green Progressive
188
9%
Democratic Socialist
433
20%
Marxist Communist
246
12%
Anarchist Communist
202
10%
Other (please state)
176
8%
 
Total votes : 2121

User avatar
Pandeeria
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15269
Founded: Jun 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Pandeeria » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:10 pm

United Marxist Nations wrote:
Pandeeria wrote:
Yes it is, until it takes powers and no longer is a revolution.

You're just inventing definitions right now. Revolution is the act of toppling a societal order and imposing a new one.


Engels was inventing definitions.
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.

In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???

User avatar
Zudril
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 177
Founded: Sep 17, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Zudril » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:10 pm

Pandeeria wrote:
Zudril wrote:Is a fascist revolution freedom?


Yes it is, until it takes powers and no longer is a revolution.

Then neither is a socialist revolution once it institutes its will on society.
Cynic

User avatar
Pandeeria
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15269
Founded: Jun 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Pandeeria » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:11 pm

Zudril wrote:
Pandeeria wrote:
Yes it is, until it takes powers and no longer is a revolution.

Then neither is a socialist revolution once it institutes its will on society.


Indeed. If a proper Socialist revolt occurs and succeeds in that society, then the Revolution is complete in that chunk of society.
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.

In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???

User avatar
Bojikami
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11276
Founded: Jul 24, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Bojikami » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:11 pm

Pandeeria wrote:
Bojikami wrote:We aren't discussing Stalin here. We are discussing the concept of revolution as a whole now.


No, I'm discussing Stalin with the Stalin apologist, which is you. You should just concede that the purges weren't to stop Trotsky, and that he never spreader Socialism at all.

I won't because this is incorrect. The purge targeted Trotsky's remaining allies in the government. Did it get carried away and include most political foes? Yes, but this was the nature of the purge in the first place. Stalin also did infact fight to spread socialism, though yes, he could have been far more aggressive in doing so.
Be gay, do crime.
Russian in America, Pansexual Doomer, Vegan, Godless Communist
Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.33
Pandeeria wrote:Revolt is by degrees. Saying I don't like ice cream is revolutionary, but is of the most petty kind of revolutionary. It's like stating an unpopular opinion.

User avatar
United Marxist Nations
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33804
Founded: Dec 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby United Marxist Nations » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:12 pm

Pandeeria wrote:
United Marxist Nations wrote:You're just inventing definitions right now. Revolution is the act of toppling a societal order and imposing a new one.


Engels was inventing definitions.

His definition is at least in-line with the traditional meaning. I mean, can you name a revolution that didn't involve that?
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.

Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. Religious communitarian with Sorelian, Marxist, and Traditionalist influences. Sympathies toward Sunni Islam. All flags/avatars are chosen for aesthetic or humor purposes only
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.

User avatar
Zudril
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 177
Founded: Sep 17, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Zudril » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:12 pm

Pandeeria wrote:
Zudril wrote:Then neither is a socialist revolution once it institutes its will on society.


Indeed. If a proper Socialist revolt occurs and succeeds in that society, then the Revolution is complete in that chunk of society.

Then what does it matter of revolution is freedom then? It gives birth to authoritarianism. What's the point if it's "free" or not.
Cynic

User avatar
Bakery Hill
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11973
Founded: Jul 03, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Bakery Hill » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:13 pm

Bojikami wrote:
Pandeeria wrote:
No, I'm discussing Stalin with the Stalin apologist, which is you. You should just concede that the purges weren't to stop Trotsky, and that he never spreader Socialism at all.

I won't because this is incorrect. The purge targeted Trotsky's remaining allies in the government. Did it get carried away and include most political foes? Yes, but this was the nature of the purge in the first place. Stalin also did infact fight to spread socialism, though yes, he could have been far more aggressive in doing so.

"Got carried away"

ahahahahahaha fucks sake
Founder of the Committee for Proletarian Morality - Winner of Best Communist Award 2018 - Godfather of NSG Syndicalism

User avatar
Pandeeria
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15269
Founded: Jun 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Pandeeria » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:13 pm

Bojikami wrote:
Pandeeria wrote:
No, I'm discussing Stalin with the Stalin apologist, which is you. You should just concede that the purges weren't to stop Trotsky, and that he never spreader Socialism at all.

I won't because this is incorrect. The purge targeted Trotsky's remaining allies in the government. Did it get carried away and include most political foes? Yes, but this was the nature of the purge in the first place. Stalin also did infact fight to spread socialism, though yes, he could have been far more aggressive in doing so.


No, because the USSR never practiced Socialism.
United Marxist Nations wrote:Prove me wrong. Pro-tip, you can't.
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.

In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???

User avatar
Bojikami
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11276
Founded: Jul 24, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Bojikami » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:13 pm

Bakery Hill wrote:
Bojikami wrote:I won't because this is incorrect. The purge targeted Trotsky's remaining allies in the government. Did it get carried away and include most political foes? Yes, but this was the nature of the purge in the first place. Stalin also did infact fight to spread socialism, though yes, he could have been far more aggressive in doing so.

"Got carried away"

ahahahahahaha fucks sake

Nice argument fam
Be gay, do crime.
Russian in America, Pansexual Doomer, Vegan, Godless Communist
Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.33
Pandeeria wrote:Revolt is by degrees. Saying I don't like ice cream is revolutionary, but is of the most petty kind of revolutionary. It's like stating an unpopular opinion.

User avatar
Pandeeria
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15269
Founded: Jun 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Pandeeria » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:14 pm

United Marxist Nations wrote:
Pandeeria wrote:
Engels was inventing definitions.

His definition is at least in-line with the traditional meaning. I mean, can you name a revolution that didn't involve that?


Engels definitions were mediocre shit.
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.

In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???

User avatar
United Marxist Nations
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33804
Founded: Dec 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby United Marxist Nations » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:15 pm

Pandeeria wrote:
United Marxist Nations wrote:His definition is at least in-line with the traditional meaning. I mean, can you name a revolution that didn't involve that?


Engels definitions were mediocre shit.

Okay, then, say we accept your definition. Is Fox News committing a revolution when they disagree with the government?
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.

Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. Religious communitarian with Sorelian, Marxist, and Traditionalist influences. Sympathies toward Sunni Islam. All flags/avatars are chosen for aesthetic or humor purposes only
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.

User avatar
Bojikami
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11276
Founded: Jul 24, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Bojikami » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:16 pm

Pandeeria wrote:
Bojikami wrote:I won't because this is incorrect. The purge targeted Trotsky's remaining allies in the government. Did it get carried away and include most political foes? Yes, but this was the nature of the purge in the first place. Stalin also did infact fight to spread socialism, though yes, he could have been far more aggressive in doing so.


No, because the USSR never practiced Socialism.
United Marxist Nations wrote:Prove me wrong. Pro-tip, you can't.

That's where you're wrong, bucko. During the civil war and through much of the early half of the 20th century the Soviet Union actively practised socialism through it's policies. However, the experiences of World War 2 and the Cold War took it off of this path.
Be gay, do crime.
Russian in America, Pansexual Doomer, Vegan, Godless Communist
Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.33
Pandeeria wrote:Revolt is by degrees. Saying I don't like ice cream is revolutionary, but is of the most petty kind of revolutionary. It's like stating an unpopular opinion.

User avatar
Greater Istanistan
Senator
 
Posts: 4967
Founded: May 15, 2013
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Greater Istanistan » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:16 pm

Bojikami wrote:
Pandeeria wrote:
No, I'm discussing Stalin with the Stalin apologist, which is you. You should just concede that the purges weren't to stop Trotsky, and that he never spreader Socialism at all.

I won't because this is incorrect. The purge targeted Trotsky's remaining allies in the government. Did it get carried away and include most political foes? Yes, but this was the nature of the purge in the first place. Stalin also did infact fight to spread socialism, though yes, he could have been far more aggressive in doing so.


I personally feel that his flaw was in overly centralizing control. He was putting out decrees completely irrelevant to actual situations overseas, whether it was the attacks on potential allies in Spain, the accelerationist nonsense in Germany, or the demand that the Japan Communists start active resistance when the party wasn't ready. He kept on peddling all this genuine idiocy that was ignorant of real conditions while monopolizing all power in the USSR due to the whole "socialism in one country" lark, which frankly I can't take seriously. Socialism in One Country wasn't about building it in the USSR, it was about turning all international Communist activity into defending the Soviet state and Stalinism instead of trying to actually build Communism worldwide.

Stalin was such a goof.
ASK ME ABOUT HARUHIISM

DYNASTIES ARE THEFT/IMPEACH REINHARD/YANG WENLI 2020

"I am not a champion of lost causes, but of causes not yet won." - Norman Thomas

User avatar
Pandeeria
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15269
Founded: Jun 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Pandeeria » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:16 pm

United Marxist Nations wrote:
Pandeeria wrote:
Engels definitions were mediocre shit.

Okay, then, say we accept your definition. Is Fox News committing a revolution when they disagree with the government?


A very weak one, but I guess. To just say a dissenting opinion is revolt, even if it's of the utmost pettiness and stupid.
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.

In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???

User avatar
Bakery Hill
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11973
Founded: Jul 03, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Bakery Hill » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:17 pm

Bojikami wrote:
Bakery Hill wrote:"Got carried away"

ahahahahahaha fucks sake

Nice argument fam

It wasn't an argument. Saying the Purges got "carried away" is an understatement to the point of absurdity. This wasn't a house party that broke a few windows. This was at least 600,000 people murdered, almost all of them on blatantly false pretences.
Founder of the Committee for Proletarian Morality - Winner of Best Communist Award 2018 - Godfather of NSG Syndicalism

User avatar
Pandeeria
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15269
Founded: Jun 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Pandeeria » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:17 pm

Bojikami wrote:
Pandeeria wrote:
No, because the USSR never practiced Socialism.

That's where you're wrong, bucko. During the civil war and through much of the early half of the 20th century the Soviet Union actively practised socialism through it's policies. However, the experiences of World War 2 and the Cold War took it off of this path.


No, the Vangaurd Party owned the means of the production, not the working class.
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.

In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???

User avatar
Mattopilos
Senator
 
Posts: 4229
Founded: Apr 22, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Mattopilos » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:18 pm

United Marxist Nations wrote:
Mattopilos wrote:
Not always. Anarchy doesn't. Marxist-Leninist communism does, but not anarcho-collectivism or anarcho-communism, or anarcho-syndicalism. Or any anarchic systems, really (except AnCap, but we shall not talk of them).

Anarchist revolution in a nutshell
>make a state
>claim it isn't a state
Prove me wrong. Pro-tip, you can't.


Yeah, because the anarcho-communist societies in Spain were a state /sarc
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"
Dialectic egoist/Communist Egoist, Post-left anarchist, moral nihilist, Intersectional Anarcha-feminist.
my political compass:Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.23

Pros:Anarchy, Communism (not that of Stalin or Mao), abortion rights, LGBTI rights, secularism i.e. SOCAS, Agnostic atheism, free speech (within reason), science, most dark humor, dialectic egoism, anarcha-feminism.
Cons: Capitalism, Free market, Gnostic atheism and theism, the far right, intolerance of any kind, dictatorships, pseudoscience and snake-oil peddling, imperialism and overuse of military, liberalism, radical and liberal feminism

User avatar
Minzerland II
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5589
Founded: Aug 27, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Minzerland II » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:18 pm

Pandeeria wrote:
United Marxist Nations wrote:Okay, then, say we accept your definition. Is Fox News committing a revolution when they disagree with the government?


A very weak one, but I guess. To just say a dissenting opinion is revolt, even if it's of the utmost pettiness and stupid.

Lolwut.
Previous Profile: Minzerland
Donkey Advocate & Herald of Donkeydom
St Anselm of Canterbury wrote:[…]who ever heard of anything having two mothers or two fathers? (Monologion, pg. 63)

User avatar
United Marxist Nations
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33804
Founded: Dec 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby United Marxist Nations » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:19 pm

Mattopilos wrote:
United Marxist Nations wrote:Anarchist revolution in a nutshell
>make a state
>claim it isn't a state
Prove me wrong. Pro-tip, you can't.


Yeah, because the anarcho-communist societies in Spain were a state /sarc

How in the fuck were they not states? They had armies, conducted purges, had chains of command, and repressed various groups in society. Sounds like a state to me.
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.

Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. Religious communitarian with Sorelian, Marxist, and Traditionalist influences. Sympathies toward Sunni Islam. All flags/avatars are chosen for aesthetic or humor purposes only
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.

User avatar
Pandeeria
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15269
Founded: Jun 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Pandeeria » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:19 pm

Minzerland II wrote:
Pandeeria wrote:
A very weak one, but I guess. To just say a dissenting opinion is revolt, even if it's of the utmost pettiness and stupid.

Lolwut.


Revolt is by degrees. Saying I don't like ice cream is revolutionary, but is of the most petty kind of revolutionary. It's like stating an unpopular opinion.
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.

In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???

User avatar
Bojikami
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11276
Founded: Jul 24, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Bojikami » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:20 pm

Greater Istanistan wrote:
Bojikami wrote:I won't because this is incorrect. The purge targeted Trotsky's remaining allies in the government. Did it get carried away and include most political foes? Yes, but this was the nature of the purge in the first place. Stalin also did infact fight to spread socialism, though yes, he could have been far more aggressive in doing so.


I personally feel that his flaw was in overly centralizing control. He was putting out decrees completely irrelevant to actual situations overseas, whether it was the attacks on potential allies in Spain, the accelerationist nonsense in Germany, or the demand that the Japan Communists start active resistance when the party wasn't ready. He kept on peddling all this genuine idiocy that was ignorant of real conditions while monopolizing all power in the USSR due to the whole "socialism in one country" lark, which frankly I can't take seriously. Socialism in One Country wasn't about building it in the USSR, it was about turning all international Communist activity into defending the Soviet state and Stalinism instead of trying to actually build Communism worldwide.

Stalin was such a goof.

I do disagree with Stalin and wish he did more to advance world socialism prior to World War 2. However, the Soviet Union was simply unable to partake in any overt armed struggle against the capitalist west without destroying itself and its army prior to the industrialisation of the 30s. World War 2 created conditions in Europe that, if not managed by a genuine socialist, could easily become social-imperialist. Which is what Khrushchev did.
Be gay, do crime.
Russian in America, Pansexual Doomer, Vegan, Godless Communist
Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.33
Pandeeria wrote:Revolt is by degrees. Saying I don't like ice cream is revolutionary, but is of the most petty kind of revolutionary. It's like stating an unpopular opinion.

User avatar
Mattopilos
Senator
 
Posts: 4229
Founded: Apr 22, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Mattopilos » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:21 pm

United Marxist Nations wrote:
Mattopilos wrote:
Yeah, because the anarcho-communist societies in Spain were a state /sarc

How in the fuck were they not states? They had armies, conducted purges, had chains of command, and repressed various groups in society. Sounds like a state to me.


Armies don't make a state. Purges don't make a state. A chain of command does not make a state. Repression does not make a state.
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"
Dialectic egoist/Communist Egoist, Post-left anarchist, moral nihilist, Intersectional Anarcha-feminist.
my political compass:Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.23

Pros:Anarchy, Communism (not that of Stalin or Mao), abortion rights, LGBTI rights, secularism i.e. SOCAS, Agnostic atheism, free speech (within reason), science, most dark humor, dialectic egoism, anarcha-feminism.
Cons: Capitalism, Free market, Gnostic atheism and theism, the far right, intolerance of any kind, dictatorships, pseudoscience and snake-oil peddling, imperialism and overuse of military, liberalism, radical and liberal feminism

User avatar
Pandeeria
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15269
Founded: Jun 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Pandeeria » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:21 pm

Bojikami wrote:
Greater Istanistan wrote:
I personally feel that his flaw was in overly centralizing control. He was putting out decrees completely irrelevant to actual situations overseas, whether it was the attacks on potential allies in Spain, the accelerationist nonsense in Germany, or the demand that the Japan Communists start active resistance when the party wasn't ready. He kept on peddling all this genuine idiocy that was ignorant of real conditions while monopolizing all power in the USSR due to the whole "socialism in one country" lark, which frankly I can't take seriously. Socialism in One Country wasn't about building it in the USSR, it was about turning all international Communist activity into defending the Soviet state and Stalinism instead of trying to actually build Communism worldwide.

Stalin was such a goof.

I do disagree with Stalin and wish he did more to advance world socialism prior to World War 2. However, the Soviet Union was simply unable to partake in any overt armed struggle against the capitalist west without destroying itself and its army prior to the industrialisation of the 30s. World War 2 created conditions in Europe that, if not managed by a genuine socialist, could easily become social-imperialist. Which is what Khrushchev did.


>Calls Stalin a genuine Socialist

My fucking sides mate, my fucking sides. Is this suppose to be a prank?
Last edited by Pandeeria on Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.

In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???

User avatar
United Marxist Nations
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33804
Founded: Dec 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby United Marxist Nations » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:22 pm

Mattopilos wrote:
United Marxist Nations wrote:How in the fuck were they not states? They had armies, conducted purges, had chains of command, and repressed various groups in society. Sounds like a state to me.


Armies don't make a state. Purges don't make a state. A chain of command does not make a state. Repression does not make a state.

So, what does make a state then?
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.

Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. Religious communitarian with Sorelian, Marxist, and Traditionalist influences. Sympathies toward Sunni Islam. All flags/avatars are chosen for aesthetic or humor purposes only
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.

User avatar
United Marxist Nations
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33804
Founded: Dec 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby United Marxist Nations » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:22 pm

Pandeeria wrote:
Bojikami wrote:I do disagree with Stalin and wish he did more to advance world socialism prior to World War 2. However, the Soviet Union was simply unable to partake in any overt armed struggle against the capitalist west without destroying itself and its army prior to the industrialisation of the 30s. World War 2 created conditions in Europe that, if not managed by a genuine socialist, could easily become social-imperialist. Which is what Khrushchev did.


>Calls Stalin a genuine Socialist

My fucking sides mate, my fucking sides. Is this suppose to be a prank?

Pretty much all the evidence shows that Stalin believed in the goal of socialism until his dying day.
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.

Eastern Orthodox Catechumen. Religious communitarian with Sorelian, Marxist, and Traditionalist influences. Sympathies toward Sunni Islam. All flags/avatars are chosen for aesthetic or humor purposes only
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: An Alan Smithee Nation, Aureumterra, Baltenstein, Fartsniffage, Nakena, Novus America, Vassenor, Yirophia

Advertisement

Remove ads