Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[War Gears]

They fundamentally shared common ideological justifications and goals. Both were motivated by a belief that their countries were backwards and semi-feudal and needed a powerful state in order to modernize. Both wanted this powerful state to create a New Man who would embody the values of the regime. In theory and practice, Fascist Italy and the Soviet Union were much more similar than say, Fascist Italy and Salazar's Portugal.

Their fundamental goals were different though. The Soviet state's ultimate goal was its own dissolution and to spread its ideology throughout the entire world to end history. The Fascists wanted to revive national glory. The Soviets, moreover, didn't romanticize the past of their country, and never embraced palingenetic ultranationalism. The Soviet justification for hardcore industrialization was indeed that they were backward, but the goal of industrialization was to prevent the revolution being crushed, not to strengthen Russia as a nation.

I don't think that people dispute that their goals were different, but there are deeper similarities than most are aware of.

The Bolsheviks fostered the cult of Russian nationalism quite strongly, Stalin even approved of a film about Ivan the Terrible who was portrayed positively in his fight against the boyars.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Their fundamental goals were different though. The Soviet state's ultimate goal was its own dissolution and to spread its ideology throughout the entire world to end history. The Fascists wanted to revive national glory. The Soviets, moreover, didn't romanticize the past of their country, and never embraced palingenetic ultranationalism. The Soviet justification for hardcore industrialization was indeed that they were backward, but the goal of industrialization was to prevent the revolution being crushed, not to strengthen Russia as a nation.

I don't think that people dispute that their goals were different, but there are deeper similarities than most are aware of.

The Bolsheviks fostered the cult of Russian nationalism quite strongly, Stalin even approved of a film about Ivan the Terrible who was portrayed positively in his fight against the boyars.

That's not really an example of Russian nationalism. The movie about Nevsky would have been better. Ivan Grozny movie wasn't nationalist so much as pretty explicitly about Stalin personally.

[The Parkus Empire]

War is not lawless, contrary to Hobbes. There are war crimes, there are regulations for treatment of prisoners, etc.

Hobbes was not a Marxist.

But he suggested that justice and law don't exist in war.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

But he suggested that justice and law don't exist in war.

Why should it be relevant to me what he suggested? Locke is the godfather of liberalism, and I am a Marxist, not a liberal (under any definition).

[The Parkus Empire]

But he suggested that justice and law don't exist in war.

Why should it be relevant to me what he suggested? Locke is the godfather of liberalism, and I am a Marxist, not a liberal (under any definition).

I said HOBBES, not LOCKE. Why it is relevant is because you said war is lawless, which was something he contended and I disagree with.

[The Parkus Empire]

(under any definition).

Ah, but this is quite wrong. Favoring things like freedom of speech and democracy is, strictly speaking, liberal.

[The Parkus Empire]

In regard to the supposed innate imperialism of the United States, by the way, John Jay, very arguably the most conservative Founding Father (and therefore on very good terms with John Adams), argued for a Federal Government specifically to prevent imperialism: "Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is; but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants."

[Genivaria]

In regard to the supposed innate imperialism of the United States, by the way, John Jay, very arguably the most conservative Founding Father (and therefore on very good terms with John Adams), argued for a Federal Government specifically to prevent imperialism: "Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is; but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants."

Friendly reminder that the Louisiana Purchase was done by a 'states rights' President Thomas Jefferson.

[The Parkus Empire]

In regard to the supposed innate imperialism of the United States, by the way, John Jay, very arguably the most conservative Founding Father (and therefore on very good terms with John Adams), argued for a Federal Government specifically to prevent imperialism: "Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is; but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants."

Friendly reminder that the Louisiana Purchase was done by a 'states rights' President Thomas Jefferson.

Uh, yeah. I am not sure what your point is. The "states rights" (anti-Federalist) camp were the liberals and tended to support the French Revolution. If "states rights" is a conservative cause nowadays, it is because the Federal Government has grown far, far, far beyond the latitude even Hamilton conceived of. "States rights" today doesn't generally mean less than what Hamilton wanted, it actually just means the Federal government be limited to what Hamilton envisioned.

[Genivaria]

Friendly reminder that the Louisiana Purchase was done by a 'states rights' President Thomas Jefferson.

Uh, yeah. I am not sure what your point is. The "states rights" (anti-Federalist) camp were the liberals and tended to support the French Revolution. If "states rights" is a conservative cause nowadays, it is because the Federal Government has grown far, far, far beyond the latitude even Hamilton conceived of. "States rights" today doesn't generally mean less than what Hamilton wanted, it actually just means the Federal government be limited to what Hamilton envisioned.

My point was adding to your point.

[Sanctissima]

In regard to the supposed innate imperialism of the United States, by the way, John Jay, very arguably the most conservative Founding Father (and therefore on very good terms with John Adams), argued for a Federal Government specifically to prevent imperialism: "Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is; but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants."

Friendly reminder that the Louisiana Purchase was done by a 'states rights' President Thomas Jefferson.

To be fair, you'd pretty much have to hate your own country to say no to what was essentially 1/4th of a continent being offered on a silver platter, even if it meant violating some of your ideals.

No leader with even an ounce of patriotism would have refused the deal.

[Genivaria]

Friendly reminder that the Louisiana Purchase was done by a 'states rights' President Thomas Jefferson.

To be fair, you'd pretty much have to hate your own country to say no to what was essentially 1/4th of a continent being offered on a silver platter, even if it meant violating some of your ideals.

No leader with even an ounce of patriotism would have refused the deal.

My only regret is that we stopped at the ocean.
Pax Americana!

[The Parkus Empire]

Friendly reminder that the Louisiana Purchase was done by a 'states rights' President Thomas Jefferson.

To be fair, you'd pretty much have to hate your own country to say no to what was essentially 1/4th of a continent being offered on a silver platter, even if it meant violating some of your ideals.

No leader with even an ounce of patriotism would have refused the deal.

Unfortunately it meant relocating or genocide of all those redskin squatters (which Jefferson certainly supported) who happened to be living on land fairly purchased by America.

[Genivaria]

To be fair, you'd pretty much have to hate your own country to say no to what was essentially 1/4th of a continent being offered on a silver platter, even if it meant violating some of your ideals.

No leader with even an ounce of patriotism would have refused the deal.

Unfortunately it meant relocating or genocide of all those redskin squatters (which Jefferson certainly supported) who happened to be living on land fairly purchased by America.

"All Men Are Created Equal"....except for those heathen savages over there.

[Sanctissima]

To be fair, you'd pretty much have to hate your own country to say no to what was essentially 1/4th of a continent being offered on a silver platter, even if it meant violating some of your ideals.

No leader with even an ounce of patriotism would have refused the deal.

My only regret is that we stopped at the ocean.
Pax Americana!

Blame Calhouln for opposing the annexation of Mexico.

Hell, if I recall correctly, Congress even passed an amendment specifically to prevent private ventures to conquer foreign countries because of "muh isolationism".

tfw, the US literally had citizens going out of their way to raise private armies and invade other countries a la Nova Roma, but Congress decided to cuck itself.

What could have been...

To be fair, you'd pretty much have to hate your own country to say no to what was essentially 1/4th of a continent being offered on a silver platter, even if it meant violating some of your ideals.

No leader with even an ounce of patriotism would have refused the deal.

Unfortunately it meant relocating or genocide of all those redskin squatters (which Jefferson certainly supported) who happened to be living on land fairly purchased by America.

It... admittedly got a bit out of hand, but what can you do.

The genocide was unnecessary, but when you literally have semi-nomadic tribes and horse-warriors inhabiting the land you just bought, there's bound to be conflict; and you do at least need to pacify them if you want to actually hold the land in more than a mere de jure capacity.

America just... went a bit overkill.

[The Parkus Empire]

It... admittedly got a bit out of hand, but what can you do.

The genocide was unnecessary, but when you literally have semi-nomadic tribes and horse-warriors inhabiting the land you just bought,

That's why he shouldn't have bought the fucking land. His doing so was strongly opposed by Federalists for good reason.

[Genivaria]

My only regret is that we stopped at the ocean.
Pax Americana!

Blame Calhouln for opposing the annexation of Mexico.

Hell, if I recall correctly, Congress even passed an amendment specifically to prevent private ventures to conquer foreign countries because of "muh isolationism".

tfw, the US literally had citizens going out of their way to raise private armies and invade other countries a la Nova Roma, but Congress decided to cuck itself.

What could have been...

Unfortunately it meant relocating or genocide of all those redskin squatters (which Jefferson certainly supported) who happened to be living on land fairly purchased by America.

It... admittedly got a bit out of hand, but what can you do.

The genocide was unnecessary, but when you literally have semi-nomadic tribes and horse-warriors inhabiting the land you just bought, there's bound to be conflict; and you do at least need to pacify them if you want to actually hold the land in more than a mere de jure capacity.

America just... went a bit overkill.

Yeah I actually brought up Calhoun before ironically.
"I oppose federal tyranny now lets protect slavery."
As to how else we could've handled the natives I'm not really sure.
The closest thing I can think of would be the Cossacks and they were mostly people who CHOSE a life of freedom, the natives on the other hand were born into a separate culture and religious belief than the majority of Americans.
Still though perhaps some sort of American monopoly charter so that natives would trade exclusively with them or something.

[Genivaria]

It... admittedly got a bit out of hand, but what can you do.

The genocide was unnecessary, but when you literally have semi-nomadic tribes and horse-warriors inhabiting the land you just bought,

That's why he shouldn't have bought the fucking land. His doing so was strongly opposed by Federalists for good reason.

No it needed to happen regardless.
America would remain weak as long as it restrained itself to the east coast.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I said HOBBES, not LOCKE. Why it is relevant is because you said war is lawless, which was something he contended and I disagree with.

To be honest, unless the commentator is a communist revolutionary, I don't care much about what they said or who said it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Blame Calhouln for opposing the annexation of Mexico.

Hell, if I recall correctly, Congress even passed an amendment specifically to prevent private ventures to conquer foreign countries because of "muh isolationism".

tfw, the US literally had citizens going out of their way to raise private armies and invade other countries a la Nova Roma, but Congress decided to cuck itself.

What could have been...



It... admittedly got a bit out of hand, but what can you do.

The genocide was unnecessary, but when you literally have semi-nomadic tribes and horse-warriors inhabiting the land you just bought, there's bound to be conflict; and you do at least need to pacify them if you want to actually hold the land in more than a mere de jure capacity.

America just... went a bit overkill.

Yeah I actually brought up Calhoun before ironically.
"I oppose federal tyranny now lets protect slavery."
As to how else we could've handled the natives I'm not really sure.
The closest thing I can think of would be the Cossacks and they were mostly people who CHOSE a life of freedom, the natives on the other hand were born into a separate culture and religious belief than the majority of Americans.
Still though perhaps some sort of American monopoly charter so that natives would trade exclusively with them or something.

Well, in this period, they're probably more similar to the Yakuts, Chuckchi's etc. who inhabited Siberia, with the Cossacks being the frontiersmen who subjugated them. People were already talking at the time that Russia and the United States were paralleling each other.

[Sanctissima]

It... admittedly got a bit out of hand, but what can you do.

The genocide was unnecessary, but when you literally have semi-nomadic tribes and horse-warriors inhabiting the land you just bought,

That's why he shouldn't have bought the fucking land. His doing so was strongly opposed by Federalists for good reason.

And what, throw away an amazing opportunity for his country because of petty humanitarian sentimentalities?

Had he done so, the US is unlikely to have expanded very far beyond its initial territory within the Thirteen Colonies. Nevermind that Britain would have been the likely candidate to gobble up the Mississippi Basin if the US never bothered with it, and the British weren't exactly well-known for their treatment of the natives either.

Blame Calhouln for opposing the annexation of Mexico.

Hell, if I recall correctly, Congress even passed an amendment specifically to prevent private ventures to conquer foreign countries because of "muh isolationism".

tfw, the US literally had citizens going out of their way to raise private armies and invade other countries a la Nova Roma, but Congress decided to cuck itself.

What could have been...



It... admittedly got a bit out of hand, but what can you do.

The genocide was unnecessary, but when you literally have semi-nomadic tribes and horse-warriors inhabiting the land you just bought, there's bound to be conflict; and you do at least need to pacify them if you want to actually hold the land in more than a mere de jure capacity.

America just... went a bit overkill.

Yeah I actually brought up Calhoun before ironically.
"I oppose federal tyranny now lets protect slavery."
As to how else we could've handled the natives I'm not really sure.
The closest thing I can think of would be the Cossacks and they were mostly people who CHOSE a life of freedom, the natives on the other hand were born into a separate culture and religious belief than the majority of Americans.
Still though perhaps some sort of American monopoly charter so that natives would trade exclusively with them or something.

John "Congress is tyrannical but I'll be damned if you're going to free the slaves" Calhouln

In terms of the Aboriginals, war was pretty much inevitable with practically every tribe (especially the horse nomads in the Great Plains), as was the loss of several of their cultural practices, but all in all integration was still possible. Just needed to pacify them, impose terms, and then render them sedentary; but without imposing a stupid reserve system or allowing them to more or less form states-within-states.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Ah, but this is quite wrong. Favoring things like freedom of speech and democracy is, strictly speaking, liberal.

I favor proletarian democracy, not bourgeois democracy (often advocated, or at least tolerated, by liberals of various types).

As to free speech, check out my own motto toward the top of this page.

I am not a liberal.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's why he shouldn't have bought the fucking land. His doing so was strongly opposed by Federalists for good reason.

And what, throw away an amazing opportunity for his country because of petty humanitarian sentimentalities?

Had he done so, the US is unlikely to have expanded very far beyond its initial territory within the Thirteen Colonies. Nevermind that Britain would have been the likely candidate to gobble up the Mississippi Basin if the US never bothered with it, and the British weren't exactly well-known for their treatment of the natives either.

The United States was already larger than the Thirteen Colonies.

[The Parkus Empire]

petty humanitarian sentimentalities

Mostly Christian sentiments at that time, but what is petty about them?

[Genivaria]

petty humanitarian sentimentalities

Mostly Christian sentiments at that time, but what is petty about them?

Christian sentiments being petty, news at 11.
Also I very much doubt that it was the universal 'christian' view at the time to make nice with the heathens.