Left-Wing Discussion Thread II: Behind 700,000 Bunkers

[Kubra]

I mean that's a lot of good reasons to dislike joe tho
I mean labour camps are one thing, the tsars had em and the russian federation has em, but generally that lot are smart enough to figure that they're better off keeping competent albeit politically sensitive folks in uniform rather than in camps, else you lose a war to finland.

Yes, but one can't be very picky when the next most influential Socialist leader is a guy who hated sparrows so much he organized a massive genocidal anti-sparrow campaign to wipe them out and inadvertently caused a famine that wiped out 50 million of his own people in the process. Also sweet potatoes are good and we should plant more of them, because reasons.

Well Mao was an exceptional case. As I've said before, easterners are very different from westerners. In weird ways. Weird for us, anyways.

idk about sweet potatoes but cmon potatoes are the best crop period. Delicious, calorie dense, really great fried, what more do you want?

[Kubra]

Your ad hominems are duly noted.

Do adulterous parasitic child-abandoning dropouts deserve love?

Yes. I don't see the problem.

[Liriena]

You say that; however, you said that my argument holds no water when I pretty much did the same thing.

And I think questions can be used as arguments.

Liriena suggested that Marx, a man with all of the attributes I listed, deserved to be loved in a manner similar to the Founding Fathers. I merely asked for clarification.
Marx in his lifetime accomplished very little. The Founding Fathers, however, have innumerable achievements under their belts. Comparing the two is simply absurd.

The Founding Fathers founded a country. Marx founded a school of thought and political movement that went on to become a dominating force in international politics and academia. Two of the 20th century's most powerful nation-states, along with many others, were built at least partially on his ideas, as were prominent political parties elsewhere. His work opened the doors to whole new ways of studying human society, cultures and economies. Social sciences as we know them today owe much to him and his successors.

You can argue whether he was a positive or negative influence on humanity overall, but he sure had a major influence on our contemporary history.

[Liriena]

If they wrote really, really good stuff? We can apply some "death of the author". I do it with Borges and Ridley Scott.

But the predicament here is that he didn't write anything good.

I disagree.

[The Grene Knyght]

You say that; however, you said that my argument holds no water when I pretty much did the same thing.

And I think questions can be used as arguments.

Liriena suggested that Marx, a man with all of the attributes I listed, deserved to be loved in a manner similar to the Founding Fathers. I merely asked for clarification.
Marx in his lifetime accomplished very little. The Founding Fathers, however, have innumerable achievements under their belts. Comparing the two is simply absurd.

I don't think the influence that any one founding father, or even the group as a whole, had over history comes close to matching Marx's.

[The Liberated Territories]

Liriena suggested that Marx, a man with all of the attributes I listed, deserved to be loved in a manner similar to the Founding Fathers. I merely asked for clarification.
Marx in his lifetime accomplished very little. The Founding Fathers, however, have innumerable achievements under their belts. Comparing the two is simply absurd.

I don't think the influence that any one founding father, or even the group as a whole, had over history comes close to matching Marx's.

So you don't think that the founders creating one of the most influential countries in the world isn't on par with Marx?

[Sanctissima]

Yes, but one can't be very picky when the next most influential Socialist leader is a guy who hated sparrows so much he organized a massive genocidal anti-sparrow campaign to wipe them out and inadvertently caused a famine that wiped out 50 million of his own people in the process. Also sweet potatoes are good and we should plant more of them, because reasons.

Well Mao was an exceptional case. As I've said before, easterners are very different from westerners. In weird ways. Weird for us, anyways.

idk about sweet potatoes but cmon potatoes are the best crop period. Delicious, calorie dense, really great fried, what more do you want?

Eh, I'd say Pol "Kill everyone with eyeglasses" Pot takes the cake for greatest exception.

And oi'm half Irish, so I concur regarding potatoes. Damn Sassanachs an' their Potato Famines.

[Valgora]

I don't think the influence that any one founding father, or even the group as a whole, had over history comes close to matching Marx's.

So you don't think that the founders creating one of the most influential countries in the world isn't on par with Marx?

No, it's not.

The Founding Fathers founded a country. Marx founded a school of thought and political movement that went on to become a dominating force in international politics and academia. Two of the 20th century's most powerful nation-states, along with many others, were built at least partially on his ideas, as were prominent political parties elsewhere. His work opened the doors to whole new ways of studying human society, cultures and economies. Social sciences as we know them today owe much to him and his successors.

You can argue whether he was a positive or negative influence on humanity overall, but he sure had a major influence on our contemporary history.

[The Grene Knyght]

I don't think the influence that any one founding father, or even the group as a whole, had over history comes close to matching Marx's.

So you don't think that the founders creating one of the most influential countries in the world isn't on par with Marx?

I didn't stutter.

[The Liberated Territories]

So you don't think that the founders creating one of the most influential countries in the world isn't on par with Marx?

I didn't stutter.

In terms of sheer influence I put my marbles on the still-existing American experiment instead of the no longer existing Communist one.

Or was that not "real communism?"

[Conserative Morality]

In terms of sheer influence I put my marbles on the still-existing American experiment instead of the no longer existing Communist one.

Or was that not "real communism?"

TIL China no longer exists.

Without Marx, there's no SovUnion. Without the SovUnion, there's no 1920s red scare. No red scare; weaker pro-market values in the 30s. Weaker pro-market values in the 30s, retardation of American capitalist spirit. No SovUnion, also, WW2 is vastly different. No Cold War. Both incredibly important in the development of America as both a world power and an ideological one.

[Liriena]

I didn't stutter.

In terms of sheer influence I put my marbles on the still-existing American experiment instead of the no longer existing Communist one.

Or was that not "real communism?"

I'd dare say that there are probably more Marxist parties out there right now than explicitly "Jeffersonian" or "Hamiltonian" ones. As for the American experiment, one could wonder just how many of its successes were in fact influenced by the ideas of the Founding Fathers.

[Kubra]

Well Mao was an exceptional case. As I've said before, easterners are very different from westerners. In weird ways. Weird for us, anyways.

idk about sweet potatoes but cmon potatoes are the best crop period. Delicious, calorie dense, really great fried, what more do you want?

Eh, I'd say Pol "Kill everyone with eyeglasses" Pot takes the cake for greatest exception.

And oi'm half Irish, so I concur regarding potatoes. Damn Sassanachs an' their Potato Famines.

Don't forget the part where they told everyone "yo after the intellectuals are done those subhuman vietnamese are next how hard could it be"
I legit remember a source where the propaganda broadcast was "all we gotta do is kill 32 vietnamese for each person who dies, that's all you gotta do folks"
nah I don't like potatoes around the isles, that lot can't season em worth a damn, can't even properly salt french fries.

[The Grene Knyght]

I didn't stutter.

In terms of sheer influence I put my marbles on the still-existing American experiment instead of the no longer existing Communist one.

Or was that not "real communism?"

I think Marxism had a huge effect on America, both internally and externally, and its influence was far more significant in the last 100 years or so to the formulation of America as we know it today than that of the founding fathers.

[The Liberated Territories]

In terms of sheer influence I put my marbles on the still-existing American experiment instead of the no longer existing Communist one.

Or was that not "real communism?"

TIL China no longer exists.

Without Marx, there's no SovUnion. Without the SovUnion, there's no 1920s red scare. No red scare; weaker pro-market values in the 30s. Weaker pro-market values in the 30s, retardation of American capitalist spirit. No SovUnion, also, WW2 is vastly different. No Cold War. Both incredibly important in the development of America as both a world power and an ideological one.

So then imagine no United States.

No United States: no involvement in Latin America, perhaps less of a hatred towards capitalism due to the adoption of socialist ideology in many of them. No (or at least less) modern day Islamic terrorism, no advances in Republican ideology: Europe is probably still monarchist and empire. Etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lBBPSdnn_E

[Liriena]

TIL China no longer exists.

Without Marx, there's no SovUnion. Without the SovUnion, there's no 1920s red scare. No red scare; weaker pro-market values in the 30s. Weaker pro-market values in the 30s, retardation of American capitalist spirit. No SovUnion, also, WW2 is vastly different. No Cold War. Both incredibly important in the development of America as both a world power and an ideological one.

So then imagine no United States.

No United States: no involvement in Latin America

I'm sold.

[The Liberated Territories]

So then imagine no United States.

No United States: no involvement in Latin America

I'm sold.

The British Empire would still be there to ruin your day. I'd imagine modern day in this scenario to be a competition between both empires. Perhaps without America Spain would still control Argentina, Venezuela, etc. and the Brits would control Canada and the "Columbian Colonies" and they'd probably be warring over territory in the New World.

[Northern Davincia]

Liriena suggested that Marx, a man with all of the attributes I listed, deserved to be loved in a manner similar to the Founding Fathers. I merely asked for clarification.
Marx in his lifetime accomplished very little. The Founding Fathers, however, have innumerable achievements under their belts. Comparing the two is simply absurd.

The Founding Fathers founded a country. Marx founded a school of thought and political movement that went on to become a dominating force in international politics and academia. Two of the 20th century's most powerful nation-states, along with many others, were built at least partially on his ideas, as were prominent political parties elsewhere. His work opened the doors to whole new ways of studying human society, cultures and economies. Social sciences as we know them today owe much to him and his successors.

You can argue whether he was a positive or negative influence on humanity overall, but he sure had a major influence on our contemporary history.

The United States literally inspired France and much of Latin America (as well as the Philippines) to revolt against imperialism and monarchy.
Which ultimately got the ball rolling on Europe and Asia giving into democracy both before and after WWI.

Marx's school of thought hardly deserves credit when literally no one in recorded history has actually practiced it.

In terms of sheer influence I put my marbles on the still-existing American experiment instead of the no longer existing Communist one.

Or was that not "real communism?"

I'd dare say that there are probably more Marxist parties out there right now than explicitly "Jeffersonian" or "Hamiltonian" ones. As for the American experiment, one could wonder just how many of its successes were in fact influenced by the ideas of the Founding Fathers.

How many of those parties are actually Marxist and not something else entirely?

[Sanctissima]

Eh, I'd say Pol "Kill everyone with eyeglasses" Pot takes the cake for greatest exception.

And oi'm half Irish, so I concur regarding potatoes. Damn Sassanachs an' their Potato Famines.

Don't forget the part where they told everyone "yo after the intellectuals are done those subhuman vietnamese are next how hard could it be"
I legit remember a source where the propaganda broadcast was "all we gotta do is kill 32 vietnamese for each person who dies, that's all you gotta do folks"
nah I don't like potatoes around the isles, that lot can't season em worth a damn, can't even properly salt french fries.

My favourite part was the prologue: "Okay guys, let's hamstring our entire industrial base, turn the capital into a ghost city, reduce our economic capacity to that of an agrarian shit-state, and then take on those revisionist Vietnamese bastards! C'mon guys, I know we can pull it off."

The emerald isle dindu nothin' and... I agree that the British are literal demonspawn.

[Kubra]

Don't forget the part where they told everyone "yo after the intellectuals are done those subhuman vietnamese are next how hard could it be"
I legit remember a source where the propaganda broadcast was "all we gotta do is kill 32 vietnamese for each person who dies, that's all you gotta do folks"
nah I don't like potatoes around the isles, that lot can't season em worth a damn, can't even properly salt french fries.

My favourite part was the prologue: "Okay guys, let's hamstring our entire industrial base, turn the capital into a ghost city, reduce our economic capacity to that of an agrarian shit-state, and then take on those revisionist Vietnamese bastards! C'mon guys, I know we can pull it off."

The emerald isle dindu nothin' and... I agree that the British are literal demonspawn.

>scrap the cambodian airforce for shitty ploughs
>surprised when the vietnamese fuck you up

The irish have an excuse, they didn't exactly have money for spices. those metropole sorts have no excuse.

[Threlizdun]

You say that; however, you said that my argument holds no water when I pretty much did the same thing.

And I think questions can be used as arguments.

Liriena suggested that Marx, a man with all of the attributes I listed, deserved to be loved in a manner similar to the Founding Fathers. I merely asked for clarification.
Marx in his lifetime accomplished very little. The Founding Fathers, however, have innumerable achievements under their belts. Comparing the two is simply absurd.

The man is one of the most influential figures in sociological, philosophical, political, and economic theory to ever live. His theories compose the backbone of modern sociology. His work inspired political parties, labor unions, revolutions, and major social movements. To say Marx accomplished little, regardless of your opinion of Marxism, is laughably false.

[Liriena]

I'm sold.

The British Empire would still be there to ruin your day. I'd imagine modern day in this scenario to be a competition between both empires. Perhaps without America Spain would still control Argentina, Venezuela, etc. and the Brits would control Canada and the "Columbian Colonies" and they'd probably be warring over territory in the New World.

Or maybe the monarchists would have won the argument over how the River Plate should be governed, and we'd now have a Second Inca Empire. That would have been cool.

[Liriena]

The Founding Fathers founded a country. Marx founded a school of thought and political movement that went on to become a dominating force in international politics and academia. Two of the 20th century's most powerful nation-states, along with many others, were built at least partially on his ideas, as were prominent political parties elsewhere. His work opened the doors to whole new ways of studying human society, cultures and economies. Social sciences as we know them today owe much to him and his successors.

You can argue whether he was a positive or negative influence on humanity overall, but he sure had a major influence on our contemporary history.

The United States literally inspired France and much of Latin America (as well as the Philippines) to revolt against imperialism and monarchy.
Which ultimately got the ball rolling on Europe and Asia giving into democracy both before and after WWI.

Marx's school of thought hardly deserves credit when literally no one in recorded history has actually practiced it.

That's debatable. His school of thought has been widely practiced in the social sciences. In the political sphere, Marxism-Leninism and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism may not have been exact replicas of what Marx envisioned, but they at least had a foundation in his ideas, even if neither of the two has so far translated into a communist society.

I'd dare say that there are probably more Marxist parties out there right now than explicitly "Jeffersonian" or "Hamiltonian" ones. As for the American experiment, one could wonder just how many of its successes were in fact influenced by the ideas of the Founding Fathers.

How many of those parties are actually Marxist and not something else entirely?

I don't know.

[The Grene Knyght]

nah I don't like potatoes around the isles, that lot can't season em worth a damn, can't even properly salt french fries.

Someone's never had a spicebag :'(

[Northern Davincia]

Liriena suggested that Marx, a man with all of the attributes I listed, deserved to be loved in a manner similar to the Founding Fathers. I merely asked for clarification.
Marx in his lifetime accomplished very little. The Founding Fathers, however, have innumerable achievements under their belts. Comparing the two is simply absurd.

The man is one of the most influential figures in sociological, philosophical, political, and economic theory to ever live. His theories compose the backbone of modern sociology. His work inspired political parties, labor unions, revolutions, and major social movements. To say Marx accomplished little, regardless of your opinion of Marxism, is laughably false.

I said he accomplished little in his lifetime.
Reading comprehension is important.

Also, why does Engels get nothing in global recognition compared to Marx?