Left-Wing Discussion Thread

[Sanctissima]

Fascism is socialism, just a different kind.

Fascism is not socialist - it maintains the capitalist mode of production, advocating class collaboration in the form of totalitarian corporatism.

To be frank, while they certainly aren't the same thing, Fascism and Socialism are pretty much just two sides of the same coin. General grievances between the two aside, the far-Left and far-Right have more in common than either are often willing to acknowledge.

[Pandeeria]

Fascism is not socialist - it maintains the capitalist mode of production, advocating class collaboration in the form of totalitarian corporatism.

To be frank, while they certainly aren't the same thing, Fascism and Socialism are pretty much just two sides of the same coin. General grievances between the two aside, the far-Left and far-Right have more in common than either are often willing to acknowledge.

No they don't. Horse shoe theory is horse shit.

[Sanctissima]

To be frank, while they certainly aren't the same thing, Fascism and Socialism are pretty much just two sides of the same coin. General grievances between the two aside, the far-Left and far-Right have more in common than either are often willing to acknowledge.

No they don't. Horse shoe theory is horse shit.

The two are both collectivist at their core. The rhetoric aside, both are functionally very similar. Just replace the State with "the People" and swap out those swastikas for hammers-and-sickles, and you can make Nazi Germany look almost identical to the USSR. You might not like it, but at the end of the day Fascists are just Socialists with fancier uniforms.

[Pandeeria]

No they don't. Horse shoe theory is horse shit.

The two are both collectivist at their core. The rhetoric aside, both are functionally very similar. Just replace the State with "the People" and swap out those swastikas for hammers-and-sickles, and you can make Nazi Germany look almost identical to the USSR. You might not like it, but at the end of the day Fascists are just Socialists with fancier uniforms.

The USSR wasn't socialist.

However to foolishly just say "well you done der just replace 'em swastikas wit hammer 'n sickles" is a laughably naïve statement on the complicated differences between the far left and right.

[Sanctissima]

The two are both collectivist at their core. The rhetoric aside, both are functionally very similar. Just replace the State with "the People" and swap out those swastikas for hammers-and-sickles, and you can make Nazi Germany look almost identical to the USSR. You might not like it, but at the end of the day Fascists are just Socialists with fancier uniforms.

The USSR wasn't socialist.

However to foolishly just say "well you done der just replace 'me swastikas with hammer 'n sickles" is a laughably naïve statement on the complicated differences between the far left and right.

Or, y'know, you just don't like the idea of having your ideology compared to Fascism.

And do by all means enlighten me as to how the USSR wasn't Socialist. That would be one argument I definitely haven't heard before.

[The One True Benxboro Empire]

No they don't. Horse shoe theory is horse shit.

The two are both collectivist at their core. The rhetoric aside, both are functionally very similar. Just replace the State with "the People" and swap out those swastikas for hammers-and-sickles, and you can make Nazi Germany look almost identical to the USSR. You might not like it, but at the end of the day Fascists are just Socialists with fancier uniforms.

And brazen militarism and hivemind-like contempt for foreigners.

[Pandeeria]

The USSR wasn't socialist.

However to foolishly just say "well you done der just replace 'me swastikas with hammer 'n sickles" is a laughably naïve statement on the complicated differences between the far left and right.

Or, y'know, you just don't like the idea of having your ideology compared to Fascism.

And do by all means enlighten me as to how the USSR wasn't Socialist. That would be one argument I definitely haven't heard before.

The workers didn't own the means of production, and therefore it wasn't socialist.

[Sanctissima]

The two are both collectivist at their core. The rhetoric aside, both are functionally very similar. Just replace the State with "the People" and swap out those swastikas for hammers-and-sickles, and you can make Nazi Germany look almost identical to the USSR. You might not like it, but at the end of the day Fascists are just Socialists with fancier uniforms.

And brazen militarism and hivemind-like contempt for foreigners.

Both of which were and are present in most Socialist countries.

Or, y'know, you just don't like the idea of having your ideology compared to Fascism.

And do by all means enlighten me as to how the USSR wasn't Socialist. That would be one argument I definitely haven't heard before.

The workers didn't own the means of production, and therefore it wasn't socialist.

Collectivization was a pretty big thing y'know.

[The One True Benxboro Empire]

And brazen militarism and hivemind-like contempt for foreigners.

Both of which were and are present in most Socialist countries.

The workers didn't own the means of production, and therefore it wasn't socialist.

Collectivization was a pretty big thing y'know.

Fair enough. In real life they tend to focus on the same brutish authoritarianism to maintain their existences.
The horseshoe theory is hardly shit, humans are just shitty and have a limited thought diversity space.

[Pandeeria]

And brazen militarism and hivemind-like contempt for foreigners.

Both of which were and are present in most Socialist countries.

The workers didn't own the means of production, and therefore it wasn't socialist.

Collectivization was a pretty big thing y'know.

That doesn't address my point. The USSR didn't fit the definition of the adjective 'Socialist' so therefore it wasn't socialist.

You're also laughably forgetting that Fascism promotes a totalitarian state that promotes nationalism and class collaboration.

Communism promotes a stateless, classless, internationalist society.

[Sanctissima]

Both of which were and are present in most Socialist countries.



Collectivization was a pretty big thing y'know.

That doesn't address my point. The USSR didn't find the definition of the adjective 'Socialist' so therefore it wasn't socialist.

You're also laughably forgetting that Fascism promotes a totalitarian state that promotes nationalism and class collaboration.

Communism promotes a stateless, classless, internationalist society.

If you don't consider mass collectivization to be sufficient for fitting the "means of production owned by the proletariat" criteria, then there has literally been no Socialist country ever, so god help your ideology ever getting past the building blocks of society-building. You can argue quite reasonably that it wasn't Communist, but if you're telling me it didn't even fit the Socialist category then I really wonder how you think your ideology will ever work out.

In terms of Communism, it's actually a stateless, classless and moneyless society. Tsk, tsk, what kind of a Commie are you?

[Pandeeria]

That doesn't address my point. The USSR didn't find the definition of the adjective 'Socialist' so therefore it wasn't socialist.

You're also laughably forgetting that Fascism promotes a totalitarian state that promotes nationalism and class collaboration.

Communism promotes a stateless, classless, internationalist society.

If you don't consider mass collectivization to be sufficient for fitting the "means of production owned by the proletariat" criteria, then there has literally been no Socialist country ever, so god help your ideology ever getting past the building blocks of society-building. You can argue quite reasonably that it wasn't Communist, but if you're telling me it didn't even fit the Socialist category then I really wonder how you think your ideology will ever work out.

In terms of Communism, it's actually a stateless, classless and moneyless society. Tsk, tsk, what kind of a Commie are you?

If you want a picture of Socialism, take a look at the Paris Commune. The USSR had a party-dominated economy.

I'm also the type of Commie that fucking reads books instead of copy pastes from Wikipedia.

[Mattopilos]

That doesn't address my point. The USSR didn't find the definition of the adjective 'Socialist' so therefore it wasn't socialist.

You're also laughably forgetting that Fascism promotes a totalitarian state that promotes nationalism and class collaboration.

Communism promotes a stateless, classless, internationalist society.

If you don't consider mass collectivization to be sufficient for fitting the "means of production owned by the proletariat" criteria, then there has literally been no Socialist country ever, so god help your ideology ever getting past the building blocks of society-building. You can argue quite reasonably that it wasn't Communist, but if you're telling me it didn't even fit the Socialist category then I really wonder how you think your ideology will ever work out.

In terms of Communism, it's actually a stateless, classless and moneyless society. Tsk, tsk, what kind of a Commie are you?

You do realize there are various theories of communism and Collectivism, no? At least read more theory before spouting such ignorance.

[Mattopilos]

National socialism is not socialism. It is far-right fascism. The Nazis hated socialists and were the enemies of the progressive movement.

Fascism is socialism, just a different kind.

... Please learn before you even speak about such things. Honestly, how on earth could you think that is the case?

[Sanctissima]

If you don't consider mass collectivization to be sufficient for fitting the "means of production owned by the proletariat" criteria, then there has literally been no Socialist country ever, so god help your ideology ever getting past the building blocks of society-building. You can argue quite reasonably that it wasn't Communist, but if you're telling me it didn't even fit the Socialist category then I really wonder how you think your ideology will ever work out.

In terms of Communism, it's actually a stateless, classless and moneyless society. Tsk, tsk, what kind of a Commie are you?

If you want a picture of Socialism, take a look at the Paris Commune. The USSR had a party-dominated economy.

I'm also the type of Commie that fucking reads books instead of copy pastes from Wikipedia.

Yeah I'll be blunt, the fact it only survived for a little over two months aside, the Paris Commune isn't exactly something one might want to emulate. Barricades and burning the Tuileries for shits-n'-giggles is about all that story has to offer.

[Sanctissima]

If you don't consider mass collectivization to be sufficient for fitting the "means of production owned by the proletariat" criteria, then there has literally been no Socialist country ever, so god help your ideology ever getting past the building blocks of society-building. You can argue quite reasonably that it wasn't Communist, but if you're telling me it didn't even fit the Socialist category then I really wonder how you think your ideology will ever work out.

In terms of Communism, it's actually a stateless, classless and moneyless society. Tsk, tsk, what kind of a Commie are you?

You do realize there are various theories of communism and Collectivism, no? At least read more theory before spouting such ignorance.

None of which involve money.

All of them call for the elimination of modern currency. Sure, quite a few call for the replacement of money with other forms of currency like labour vouchers, but they all go out of their way not to call it money.

The whole "stateless, classless and moneyless" thing is pretty integral to any ideology that considers itself Communist.

[Pandeeria]

If you want a picture of Socialism, take a look at the Paris Commune. The USSR had a party-dominated economy.

I'm also the type of Commie that fucking reads books instead of copy pastes from Wikipedia.

Yeah I'll be blunt, the fact it only survived for a little over two months aside, the Paris Commune isn't exactly something one might want to emulate. Barricades and burning the Tuileries for shits-n'-giggles is about all that story has to offer.

It was a single city against the whole of the French Empire. The fact that it held for a few months has is a testament to it's military strength.

If you want a bit longer of an exmaple (~3 years) check on the Ukrainian Free Territory. Though it isn't exactly a great example, it does show Socialism in some of society's economic environment.

[Mattopilos]

You do realize there are various theories of communism and Collectivism, no? At least read more theory before spouting such ignorance.

None of which involve money.

All of them call for the elimination of modern currency. Sure, quite a few call for the replacement of money with other forms of currency like labour vouchers, but they all go out of their way not to call it money.

The whole "stateless, classless and moneyless" thing is pretty integral to any ideology that considers itself Communist.

Collectivist wage systems are proposed for some, though. That is what I mean - they effectively ACT as currency in a limited sense. Not that I agree with it.

[Sanctissima]

None of which involve money.

All of them call for the elimination of modern currency. Sure, quite a few call for the replacement of money with other forms of currency like labour vouchers, but they all go out of their way not to call it money.

The whole "stateless, classless and moneyless" thing is pretty integral to any ideology that considers itself Communist.

Collectivist wage systems are proposed for some, though. That is what I mean - they effectively ACT as currency in a limited sense. Not that I agree with it.

Fair point. I hadn't considered those since they do stretch the bounds of what's typically considered collectivism. Particularly collectivism of the Left-wing variety.

Yeah I'll be blunt, the fact it only survived for a little over two months aside, the Paris Commune isn't exactly something one might want to emulate. Barricades and burning the Tuileries for shits-n'-giggles is about all that story has to offer.

It was a single city against the whole of the French Empire. The fact that it held for a few months has is a testament to it's military strength.

If you want a bit longer of an exmaple (~3 years) check on the Ukrainian Free Territory. Though it isn't exactly a great example, it does show Socialism in some of society's economic environment.

Well, more like a newly formed and fledgling French Republic. The French Empire was pretty much dead after Sedan. You have to keep in mind that at this time, the Prussians were just miles away, sitting back and waiting in Versailles while the French got their shit together and retook Paris.

Admittedly, the defeat of the Commune was inevitable, but it was hardly a big sprawling empire that was knocking on its door to take Paris. The Republicans forces were weakened, and very vulnerable. It's not overly surprising that the Commune managed to last as long as it did.

In terms of the Free Territory, sure, it's interesting, but it was an Anarchist experiment. I suppose the differences with Communism would be negligible, but Makhno was kind of doing his own thing. And either way, he's pretty much the one and only primary source we have for what was going on in the territory at the time. Not saying it's a bad example, but it does tend to be romanticized, which skews the facts somewhat.

[Daburuetchi]

Yeah I'll be blunt, the fact it only survived for a little over two months aside, the Paris Commune isn't exactly something one might want to emulate. Barricades and burning the Tuileries for shits-n'-giggles is about all that story has to offer.

It was a single city against the whole of the French Empire. The fact that it held for a few months has is a testament to it's military strength.

If you want a bit longer of an exmaple (~3 years) check on the Ukrainian Free Territory. Though it isn't exactly a great example, it does show Socialism in some of society's economic environment.

Tbh the Paris Commune should have actually tried... spreading out from Paris. It's kinda remarkable how unconcerned they were with doing so.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

It was a single city against the whole of the French Empire. The fact that it held for a few months has is a testament to it's military strength.

If you want a bit longer of an exmaple (~3 years) check on the Ukrainian Free Territory. Though it isn't exactly a great example, it does show Socialism in some of society's economic environment.

Tbh the Paris Commune should have actually tried... spreading out from Paris. It's kinda remarkable how unconcerned they were with doing so.

They kinda did.

In Versailles, Thiers had estimated that he needed 150,000 men to recapture Paris, and that he had only about 20,000 reliable first-line soldiers, plus about 5,000 gendarmes. He worked rapidly to assemble a new and reliable regular army. Most of the soldiers were prisoners of war who had just been released by the Germans, following the terms of the armistice. Others were sent from military units in all of the provinces. To command the new army, Thiers chose Patrice MacMahon, who had won fame fighting the Austrians in Italy under Napoleon III, and who had been seriously wounded at the Battle of Sedan. He was highly popular both within the army and in the country. By 30 March, less than two weeks after the Army's Montmartre rout, it began skirmishing with the National Guard in the outskirts of Paris.

In Paris, members of the Military Commission and the Executive Committee of the Commune, as well as the Central Committee of the National Guard, met on 1 April. They decided to launch an offensive against the Army in Versailles within five days. The attack was first launched on the morning of 2 April by five battalions who crossed the Seine at the Pont de Neuilly. The National Guard troops were quickly repulsed by the Army, with a loss of about twelve soldiers. One officer of the Versailles army, a surgeon from the medical corps, was killed; the National Guardsmen had mistaken his uniform for that of a gendarme. Five national guardsmen were captured by the regulars; two were Army deserters and two were caught with their weapons in their hands. General Vinoy, the commander of the Paris Military District, had ordered any prisoners who were deserters from the Army to be shot. The commander of the regular forces, Colonel Georges Ernest Boulanger, went further and ordered that all four prisoners be summarily shot. The practice of shooting prisoners captured with weapons became common in the bitter fighting in the weeks ahead.[52]

Despite this first failure, Commune leaders were still convinced that, as at Montmartre, French army soldiers would refuse to fire on national guardsmen. They prepared a massive offensive of 27,000 national guardsmen who would advance in three columns. They were expected to converge at the end of 24 hours at the gates of the Palace of Versailles. They advanced on the morning of 3 April—without cavalry to protect the flanks, without artillery, without stores of food and ammunition, and without ambulances—confident of rapid success. They passed by the line of forts outside the city, believing them to be occupied by national guardsmen. In fact the army had re-occupied the abandoned forts on 28 March. The National Guard soon came under heavy artillery and rifle fire; they broke ranks and fled back to Paris. Once again national guardsmen captured with weapons were routinely shot by army units.[53]

[Daburuetchi]

They kinda did.

In Versailles, Thiers had estimated that he needed 150,000 men to recapture Paris, and that he had only about 20,000 reliable first-line soldiers, plus about 5,000 gendarmes. He worked rapidly to assemble a new and reliable regular army. Most of the soldiers were prisoners of war who had just been released by the Germans, following the terms of the armistice. Others were sent from military units in all of the provinces. To command the new army, Thiers chose Patrice MacMahon, who had won fame fighting the Austrians in Italy under Napoleon III, and who had been seriously wounded at the Battle of Sedan. He was highly popular both within the army and in the country. By 30 March, less than two weeks after the Army's Montmartre rout, it began skirmishing with the National Guard in the outskirts of Paris.

In Paris, members of the Military Commission and the Executive Committee of the Commune, as well as the Central Committee of the National Guard, met on 1 April. They decided to launch an offensive against the Army in Versailles within five days. The attack was first launched on the morning of 2 April by five battalions who crossed the Seine at the Pont de Neuilly. The National Guard troops were quickly repulsed by the Army, with a loss of about twelve soldiers. One officer of the Versailles army, a surgeon from the medical corps, was killed; the National Guardsmen had mistaken his uniform for that of a gendarme. Five national guardsmen were captured by the regulars; two were Army deserters and two were caught with their weapons in their hands. General Vinoy, the commander of the Paris Military District, had ordered any prisoners who were deserters from the Army to be shot. The commander of the regular forces, Colonel Georges Ernest Boulanger, went further and ordered that all four prisoners be summarily shot. The practice of shooting prisoners captured with weapons became common in the bitter fighting in the weeks ahead.[52]

Despite this first failure, Commune leaders were still convinced that, as at Montmartre, French army soldiers would refuse to fire on national guardsmen. They prepared a massive offensive of 27,000 national guardsmen who would advance in three columns. They were expected to converge at the end of 24 hours at the gates of the Palace of Versailles. They advanced on the morning of 3 April—without cavalry to protect the flanks, without artillery, without stores of food and ammunition, and without ambulances—confident of rapid success. They passed by the line of forts outside the city, believing them to be occupied by national guardsmen. In fact the army had re-occupied the abandoned forts on 28 March. The National Guard soon came under heavy artillery and rifle fire; they broke ranks and fled back to Paris. Once again national guardsmen captured with weapons were routinely shot by army units.[53]

I'll admit im not an expert on the subject but the passing of impractical legislation like a wartime moratorium on debts, 10 hour working day and the abolition of night work at bakeries suggest to me that the communards were a bit delusional.

[Pandeeria]

It was a single city against the whole of the French Empire. The fact that it held for a few months has is a testament to it's military strength.

If you want a bit longer of an exmaple (~3 years) check on the Ukrainian Free Territory. Though it isn't exactly a great example, it does show Socialism in some of society's economic environment.

Tbh the Paris Commune should have actually tried... spreading out from Paris. It's kinda remarkable how unconcerned they were with doing so.

Are you joking? Here's an excerpt just from the Wikipedia page:

"Soon after the Paris Commune took power in Paris, revolutionary and socialist groups in several other French cities tried to establish their own communes. The Paris Commune sent delegates to the large cities to encourage them. The longest-lasting commune outside Paris was that in Marseille, from 23 March to 4 April, which was suppressed with the loss of thirty soldiers and one hundred fifty insurgents. None of the other Communes lasted more than a few days, and most ended with little or no bloodshed."

There were quite a lot of other Communes set up. The issue was these normally lasted a few days and broke apart peacefully.

[Pandeeria]

Collectivist wage systems are proposed for some, though. That is what I mean - they effectively ACT as currency in a limited sense. Not that I agree with it.

Fair point. I hadn't considered those since they do stretch the bounds of what's typically considered collectivism. Particularly collectivism of the Left-wing variety.

It was a single city against the whole of the French Empire. The fact that it held for a few months has is a testament to it's military strength.

If you want a bit longer of an exmaple (~3 years) check on the Ukrainian Free Territory. Though it isn't exactly a great example, it does show Socialism in some of society's economic environment.

Well, more like a newly formed and fledgling French Republic. The French Empire was pretty much dead after Sedan. You have to keep in mind that at this time, the Prussians were just miles away, sitting back and waiting in Versailles while the French got their shit together and retook Paris.

Admittedly, the defeat of the Commune was inevitable, but it was hardly a big sprawling empire that was knocking on its door to take Paris. The Republicans forces were weakened, and very vulnerable. It's not overly surprising that the Commune managed to last as long as it did.

In terms of the Free Territory, sure, it's interesting, but it was an Anarchist experiment. I suppose the differences with Communism would be negligible, but Makhno was kind of doing his own thing. And either way, he's pretty much the one and only primary source we have for what was going on in the territory at the time. Not saying it's a bad example, but it does tend to be romanticized, which skews the facts somewhat.

Paris vs. the French Empire and the Prussians.

The fact they lasted as long as they did is really damn impressive. To deny that is just silliness. And what they did manage to achieve during that time is incredibly promising.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

They kinda did.

I'll admit im not an expert on the subject but the passing of impractical legislation like a wartime moratorium on debts, 10 hour working day and the abolition of night work at bakeries suggest to me that the communards were a bit delusional.

Not that delusional. They were following a tactic that worked last time the communards successfully overthrew a government - August 1792. The parallels fit too - enemy armies had defeated French armies in the field and France itself was being invaded, so the communards tossed out a government they saw as being complicit in French subjugation and declared a swathe of reforms designed to bring as many people into the fold of the new government as possible. Of course the problem with the Commune of 1871 was that it was a reaction to a government action, not a planned coup, so it was by its very nature disorganized. Hence why Thiers and the Paris regular soldiers got away and the communards' responses so uncoordinated.