Left-Wing Discussion Thread

[Trotskylvania]

It is quite easy to see that as a good thing behind a computer screen. But it wouldn't be the glorious thing you imagine it as in reality.

It wouldn't be at first, but over time the wounds would heal. Nations rebuilt, populations restored, etc. all under the fraternity of Socialism.

This is your brain on Posadism.

[Ashkera]

In which case, any dictatorship with dreams of world domination isn't really Authoritarian. It's just temporarily Authoritarian, even if for most of its rule, it's Authoritarian.

Hence, the plans of the fictional Oversight Councillor One to unite the world under National Technocracy aren't actually Authoritarian, despite explicitly banning Communism, Fascism, and Anarcho-Capitalism since the year 1936.

Long live the Fifth Empire.

Not when the end goal is socialism. The Soviet Union fought for international socialism and the eventual withering of the state thereafter. The ideology of the Soviet Union and its core principles varies greatly from any empire seeking to gain and maintain world domination.

And if the end goal fails? Then they are Authoritarian for their entire reign, end goal be damned.

I could do similar word play for the Fifth Empire, but what it boils down to is that you're making excuses so that your preferred regime doesn't get slapped with what you consider to be a negative label.

[Bojikami]

Again, incorrect. Stalin was readying the Soviet Union for the final struggle against the capitalists. This is seen in Korea when he took war to the south. It was Khruschev that halted all of this and set the Soviet Union on the path for stagnations.

Stalin was opposed to the adventurism in Korea, and continued to exert pressure to prevent a confrontation with the West, because the Soviets were at a severe disadvantage economically, and in terms of nuclear armaments.

Whatever pressure Stalin exerted to prevent conflict with the west initially was so that the Soviet Union could attain nuclear arms. Stalin himself also gave express permission to Kim Il-Sung to declare war on the South in so that the US would be lured into a limited war in Asia.

[Pandeeria]

Not when the end goal is socialism. The Soviet Union fought for international socialism and the eventual withering of the state thereafter. The ideology of the Soviet Union and its core principles varies greatly from any empire seeking to gain and maintain world domination.

And if the end goal fails? Then they are Authoritarian for their entire reign, end goal be damned.

I could do similar word play for the Fifth Empire, but what it boils down to is that you're making excuses so that your preferred regime doesn't get slapped with what you consider to be a negative label.

He simply fell for the revisionist propaganda, that the USSR was a state that genuinely was for the working class.


(Spoiler alert: it wasn't)

[Pandeeria]

Stalin was opposed to the adventurism in Korea, and continued to exert pressure to prevent a confrontation with the West, because the Soviets were at a severe disadvantage economically, and in terms of nuclear armaments.

Whatever pressure Stalin exerted to prevent conflict with the west initially was so that the Soviet Union could attain nuclear arms. Stalin himself also gave express permission to Kim Il-Sung to declare war on the South in so that the US would be lured into a limited war in Asia.

The USSR had enough nuclear bombs since 1949. You yourself said nukes were only carried by plane, and weren't nearly as destructive as they are now, so why would Stalin wait to make his own nukes?

[Bojikami]

Not when the end goal is socialism. The Soviet Union fought for international socialism and the eventual withering of the state thereafter. The ideology of the Soviet Union and its core principles varies greatly from any empire seeking to gain and maintain world domination.

And if the end goal fails? Then they are Authoritarian for their entire reign, end goal be damned.

I could do similar word play for the Fifth Empire, but what it boils down to is that you're making excuses so that your preferred regime doesn't get slapped with what you consider to be a negative label.

It will not, however. Should a tyrant arise, the people will overthrow them, simple as that.

[Bojikami]

Whatever pressure Stalin exerted to prevent conflict with the west initially was so that the Soviet Union could attain nuclear arms. Stalin himself also gave express permission to Kim Il-Sung to declare war on the South in so that the US would be lured into a limited war in Asia.

The USSR had enough nuclear bombs since 1949. You yourself said nukes were only carried by plane, and weren't nearly as destructive as they are now, so why would Stalin wait to make his own nukes?

So he had weaponry to match the west.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Yes it would be, however, it would only be temporary, it would return to the Liberal Democracy afterwards (unless some military regime take this an opportunity), the difference being however, the majority of Stalins reign was that of a Authoritarian; killing "counter-revolutionaries", purges and a number of things, Stalin was very much a Totalitarian.
You haven't answered my question, I ask again: could you prove that the policies presented by Stalin weren't permanent.

Stalin's policies would not be permanent however. Why wipe out counterrevolutionaries when no more exist? Why maintain a massive military when there is no exterior capitalist power to combat? Why retain absolute control when there is simply no reason to?

The proof lies in it's origins. Stalin initiated purges because of the elements within the communist party that had grown corrupted. Stalin centralised the state to facilitate mass-industrialisation and the war effort against both the Nazis and the capitalists. Stalin did all he did as but a means to an end. The end being establishing global socialism and strengthening the USSR to be the catalyst in the world revolution. I ask you, what proof have you to assert the claim that Stalin's policies were permanent?

First of all, there will always be Counter-Revolutionaries, people have differing opinions, there is bound to be a couple million who disagree with socialism.
You would have to maintain a military so as to control those that are willing to revolt.
If you didn't retain absolute control, someone is bound to start a revolt or encourage strong anti-socialist sentiments.
How do we know he was a totalitarian and that his policies were permanent? His entire regime was Authoritarian, whether he had good intentions or not doesn't mean he isn't Authoritarian.
His policies, we don't know whether it was temporary or permanent, nonetheless, it was the policies of which the Soviet Union abided by until its fall.

[Pandeeria]

The USSR had enough nuclear bombs since 1949. You yourself said nukes were only carried by plane, and weren't nearly as destructive as they are now, so why would Stalin wait to make his own nukes?

So he had weaponry to match the west.

But it didn't matter. It could only b delivered by plane which could be shot down.

While that happened, the USSR could've taken not petty Eastern Europe, but all of it. Why did Stalin not do this? He easily could've.

[Uiiop]

And if the end goal fails? Then they are Authoritarian for their entire reign, end goal be damned.

I could do similar word play for the Fifth Empire, but what it boils down to is that you're making excuses so that your preferred regime doesn't get slapped with what you consider to be a negative label.

It will not, however. Should a tyrant arise, the people will overthrow them, simple as that.

In other words if it's a legitimate Tyrant the people informed of socialism have ways of shutting them down.

[Dagashi Shojo]

People would be more concerned with survival in wasteland rather then rebuild nations.
You also have no guarantee that socialism will be the ideology reigning supreme.

Again, nuclear bombs, even the ones transported by plane were not nearly as devastating as they are now. The war would simply be a swift boot out of Europe and then a more protracted conflict across the rest of the world.

You have a child's view of war and how it works. Fighting all the armies of Europe, with them being supported by the US, is not going to be simple, it would be even more bloody than the Korean War. And there's no way that the USSR was going to be able to invade the US, Great Britain, or even Canada.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

And if the end goal fails? Then they are Authoritarian for their entire reign, end goal be damned.

I could do similar word play for the Fifth Empire, but what it boils down to is that you're making excuses so that your preferred regime doesn't get slapped with what you consider to be a negative label.

It will not, however. Should a tyrant arise, the people will overthrow them, simple as that.

Surprisingly the tyrant know as Joseph Stalin wasn't overthrow.

[Bojikami]

Stalin's policies would not be permanent however. Why wipe out counterrevolutionaries when no more exist? Why maintain a massive military when there is no exterior capitalist power to combat? Why retain absolute control when there is simply no reason to?

The proof lies in it's origins. Stalin initiated purges because of the elements within the communist party that had grown corrupted. Stalin centralised the state to facilitate mass-industrialisation and the war effort against both the Nazis and the capitalists. Stalin did all he did as but a means to an end. The end being establishing global socialism and strengthening the USSR to be the catalyst in the world revolution. I ask you, what proof have you to assert the claim that Stalin's policies were permanent?

First of all, there will always be Counter-Revolutionaries, people have differing opinions, there is bound to be a couple million who disagree with socialism.
You would have to maintain a military so as to control those that are willing to revolt.
If you didn't retain absolute control, someone is bound to start a revolt or encourage strong anti-socialist sentiments.
How do we know he was a totalitarian and that his policies were permanent? His entire regime was Authoritarian, whether he had good intentions or not doesn't mean he isn't Authoritarian.
His policies, we don't know whether it was temporary or permanent, nonetheless, it was the policies of which the Soviet Union abided by until its fall.

Not really. Simply arm the people and create militias to root out and destroy counterrevolutionaries.

His regime was authoritarian as the situation the Soviet Union was placed in required it. We cannot all hold hands and sing on the way to world revolution.

[Uiiop]

It will not, however. Should a tyrant arise, the people will overthrow them, simple as that.

Surprisingly the tyrant know as Joseph Stalin wasn't overthrow.

Well that's because he wasn't a legitimate tyrant./s

[Seylland]

And if the end goal fails? Then they are Authoritarian for their entire reign, end goal be damned.

I could do similar word play for the Fifth Empire, but what it boils down to is that you're making excuses so that your preferred regime doesn't get slapped with what you consider to be a negative label.

It will not, however. Should a tyrant arise, the people will overthrow them, simple as that.

You underestimate the complacency of the masses and the abilities of tyrants.

[Bojikami]

It will not, however. Should a tyrant arise, the people will overthrow them, simple as that.

Surprisingly the tyrant know as Joseph Stalin wasn't overthrow.

Because he wasn't a tyrant.

[Pandeeria]

Only if a worker's revolt happened that managed to overthrow Stalin and create a true people's republic.

[Ashkera]

And if the end goal fails? Then they are Authoritarian for their entire reign, end goal be damned.

I could do similar word play for the Fifth Empire, but what it boils down to is that you're making excuses so that your preferred regime doesn't get slapped with what you consider to be a negative label.

It will not, however. Should a tyrant arise, the people will overthrow them, simple as that.

This borders on religious.

[Pandeeria]

Surprisingly the tyrant know as Joseph Stalin wasn't overthrow.

Because he wasn't a tyrant.

He was revisionist, held on to the means of production, and stomped out all dissent. He was a tyrant.

[Pandeeria]

It will not, however. Should a tyrant arise, the people will overthrow them, simple as that.

This borders on religious.

Stalin apologists aren't one for Scientific Socialism.

[Uiiop]

It will not, however. Should a tyrant arise, the people will overthrow them, simple as that.

You underestimate the complacency of the masses and the abilities of tyrants.

Being informed of socialism makes you immune to that though. /s

[Seylland]

First of all, there will always be Counter-Revolutionaries, people have differing opinions, there is bound to be a couple million who disagree with socialism.
You would have to maintain a military so as to control those that are willing to revolt.
If you didn't retain absolute control, someone is bound to start a revolt or encourage strong anti-socialist sentiments.
How do we know he was a totalitarian and that his policies were permanent? His entire regime was Authoritarian, whether he had good intentions or not doesn't mean he isn't Authoritarian.
His policies, we don't know whether it was temporary or permanent, nonetheless, it was the policies of which the Soviet Union abided by until its fall.

Not really. Simply arm the people and create militias to root out and destroy counterrevolutionaries.

His regime was authoritarian as the situation the Soviet Union was placed in required it. We cannot all hold hands and sing on the way to world revolution.

And what? Recreate the disaster of Mao's China? The nightmare that was Democratic Kampuchea?

An armed death squad only breeds fear, resentment, and grows more radical movements that stray from the goals of communism. The revolution must be as united as possible, not divided through the use of militias.

Surprisingly the tyrant know as Joseph Stalin wasn't overthrow.

Because he wasn't a tyrant.

Good to know.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

First of all, there will always be Counter-Revolutionaries, people have differing opinions, there is bound to be a couple million who disagree with socialism.
You would have to maintain a military so as to control those that are willing to revolt.
If you didn't retain absolute control, someone is bound to start a revolt or encourage strong anti-socialist sentiments.
How do we know he was a totalitarian and that his policies were permanent? His entire regime was Authoritarian, whether he had good intentions or not doesn't mean he isn't Authoritarian.
His policies, we don't know whether it was temporary or permanent, nonetheless, it was the policies of which the Soviet Union abided by until its fall.

Not really. Simply arm the people and create militias to root out and destroy counterrevolutionaries.

His regime was authoritarian as the situation the Soviet Union was placed in required it. We cannot all hold hands and sing on the way to world revolution.

Killing counter-revolutionaries because they are against the revolution is silencing an opinion, that is pretty Authoritarian if I do say so my self.
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Bojikami]

Again, nuclear bombs, even the ones transported by plane were not nearly as devastating as they are now. The war would simply be a swift boot out of Europe and then a more protracted conflict across the rest of the world.

You have a child's view of war and how it works. Fighting all the armies of Europe, with them being supported by the US, is not going to be simple, it would be even more bloody than the Korean War. And there's no way that the USSR was going to be able to invade the US, Great Britain, or even Canada.

I fully understand what the casualty counts would have been, both civilian and military. I still say the Soviet Union should have pushed for the complete eradication of capitalism regardless.

The Soviet Red Army was far larger as was the airforce. The reason the west in the early years of the cold war was so hesitant to do anything too serious against the Soviets. The US and it's allies would have been chased from mainland Europe and eventually Asia, this would mean only a matter of time before revolution spreads to South and North America, or the Soviets and their allies take down the west forcibly.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Surprisingly the tyrant know as Joseph Stalin wasn't overthrow.

Because he wasn't a tyrant.

He was a tyrant, a tyrant that killed millions so as to sate his own paranoia.