LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[Orostan]

How do you prevent the small private business from becoming a big private business, and how do you stop those business from wielding significant political power? You are allowing the petty bourgeois to continue existing.

Break them up. Nationalize them.

The kind of censorship you propose is reasonable for a state attacked on all sides by capitalist powers, but in a socialist state not in a war or at risk of subversion you wouldn’t need to do that. I think capitalist parties ought to be allowed to exist - but should be under special observation by the state.

This doesn’t fit in with the above statement in which you decry the existence of the bourgeois yet you think they should have a political party.

I don’t think the bourgeois should have a political party. A socialist state by definition does not have a capitalist class to posses a political party. I just think free speech in theory ought to extend to people who are wrong.

Your idea to keep the petty bourgeois down and capitalism in check would require the state to maintain incredibly low corruption. In an economic environment that structurally incentivizes that sort of thing, I have a hard time believing this system could be maintained.

"Suppression of Capitalist thought" can mean anything from a good economics course at school

You mean after you shoot all of the economists who tell you that Marxism is an outdated theory and that command economies have serious problems (i.e the vast majority).

I don’t want to shoot all the economists, though the dumb shit a lot of them say tempts me sometimes. The fact of the matter is that most economists are promoters of the status quo because they get paid to promote the status quo.

The neoliberals should absolutely be deprived of all institutional power though.

[Nova Cyberia]

I quite like it.

Its a good color combo.

Imperial Germany had the best aesthetics.

[Kubra]

"Suppression of Capitalist thought" can mean anything from a good economics course at school

You mean after you shoot all of the economists who tell you that Marxism is an outdated theory and that command economies have serious problems (i.e the vast majority).

I mean hey most left-leaning economists will admit the command model was pretty bad

[Orostan]

You mean after you shoot all of the economists who tell you that Marxism is an outdated theory and that command economies have serious problems (i.e the vast majority).

I mean hey most left-leaning economists will admit the command model was pretty bad

Not under Stalin it wasn’t. Under actual socialism an agrarian country was turned into an industrial and atomic superpower in thirty years - an accomplishment that would never be repeated again without a massive influx of foreign capital.

[Kubra]

I mean hey most left-leaning economists will admit the command model was pretty bad

Not under Stalin it wasn’t. Under actual socialism an agrarian country was turned into an industrial and atomic superpower in thirty years - an accomplishment that would never be repeated again without a massive influx of foreign capital.

piece wage.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Interesting new flag, that is.

I quite like it.

The original is better tbh

[Greater Cesnica]

I quite like it.

The original is better tbh

What was the best flag on NSG?

[Washington Resistance Army]

The original is better tbh

What was the best flag on NSG?

This one obviously.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

That's really beside the point. Mocking someone's race is considered extremely offensive and unacceptable by your culture. It isn't looney for Muslims to feel at least as sensitive about the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as their skin. The simple lesson here is, don't go out of your way to mock and offend for the sake of provoking anger and then cry when you get what you wanted.

Mocking someone's race is bad. Mocking someone's ideology is not.

Eh. I mean honestly in a post-revolutionary world the hard suppression of capitalism won't really be necessary, but during the revolution or in a transitionary period I'll be damned if Dennis Prager gets to publish his searing hot bullshit.

Oh, well. He does. First amendment, remember?

And?

Fearing dissent to the point of banning is is not good, and will only lead to your government becoming ideologically rigid and inflexible, inevitably leading to a revolution.

All states fear dissent, that’s the nature of a state. Hell, that’s the nature of a lot of authority positions. It matters who’s dissent they fear and what that dissent is for.

Yes, but not all states ban dissent, at least not to the extent that you're suggesting. And the extent to which a state bans dissent matters a lot more than what dissent they ban.

[Cappuccina]

I mean hey most left-leaning economists will admit the command model was pretty bad

Not under Stalin it wasn’t. Under actual socialism an agrarian country was turned into an industrial and atomic superpower in thirty years - an accomplishment that would never be repeated again without a massive influx of foreign capital.

Command economics has merit only for narrow short term goals like those of the early Soviet and Chinese industrializations, however, they run into issues once the results of their implemention, a urbanized population, begins to put strain on the State's ablity to distribute consumer goods. Command economies are also at a disadvantage in response to fluctuations in the economy, being usually slow and inefficient.

[Kubra]

Not under Stalin it wasn’t. Under actual socialism an agrarian country was turned into an industrial and atomic superpower in thirty years - an accomplishment that would never be repeated again without a massive influx of foreign capital.

Command economics has merit only for narrow short term goals like those of the early Soviet and Chinese industrializations, however, they run into issues once the results of their implemention, a urbanized population, begins to put strain on the State's ablity to distribute consumer goods. Command economies are also at a disadvantage in response to fluctuations in the economy, being usually slow and inefficient.

And that's the big thing here: consumer goods.
The endpoint of economies is generally to put stuff that we might want into our hands, either in the form of things or in conditions (lower working hours, availability of services, agreeable work culture, etc). That's pretty much how an economy is measured in its success.

[Cekoviu]

The original is better tbh

What was the best flag on NSG?

Obviously my temporary Honkler flag.

[Orostan]

Not under Stalin it wasn’t. Under actual socialism an agrarian country was turned into an industrial and atomic superpower in thirty years - an accomplishment that would never be repeated again without a massive influx of foreign capital.

Command economics has merit only for narrow short term goals like those of the early Soviet and Chinese industrializations, however, they run into issues once the results of their implemention, a urbanized population, begins to put strain on the State's ablity to distribute consumer goods. Command economies are also at a disadvantage in response to fluctuations in the economy, being usually slow and inefficient.

That’s not true at all. Needing one giant store and one giant factory to service part of a city is easier to administer than a hundred stores and a hundred tiny factories and the associated logistics of that. Urbanization made the Soviet industrial revolution possible. In addition, there is absolutely no reason why planners, especially with modern computers, cannot handle fluctuations in demand or supply. Capitalist economies already have business dealing with these statistics. If Honda can plan the production of every component of a car, so can economic planners.

And?

Fearing dissent to the point of banning is is not good, and will only lead to your government becoming ideologically rigid and inflexible, inevitably leading to a revolution.

All states fear dissent, that’s the nature of a state. Hell, that’s the nature of a lot of authority positions. It matters who’s dissent they fear and what that dissent is for.

Yes, but not all states ban dissent, at least not to the extent that you're suggesting. And the extent to which a state bans dissent matters a lot more than what dissent they ban.

This is absolutely false. All states have ways of either suppressing or banning dissent. There is no perfect free speech country that is even possible because the very idea is pure fantasy. The USA has its way of suppressing dissidents, China has its methods, every country does.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Command economics has merit only for narrow short term goals like those of the early Soviet and Chinese industrializations, however, they run into issues once the results of their implemention, a urbanized population, begins to put strain on the State's ablity to distribute consumer goods. Command economies are also at a disadvantage in response to fluctuations in the economy, being usually slow and inefficient.

That’s not true at all. Needing one giant store and one giant factory to service part of a city is easier to administer than a hundred stores and a hundred tiny factories and the associated logistics of that. Urbanization made the Soviet industrial revolution possible. In addition, there is absolutely no reason why planners, especially with modern computers, cannot handle fluctuations in demand or supply. Capitalist economies already have business dealing with these statistics. If Honda can plan the production of every component of a car, so can economic planners.

Fearing dissent to the point of banning is is not good, and will only lead to your government becoming ideologically rigid and inflexible, inevitably leading to a revolution.


Yes, but not all states ban dissent, at least not to the extent that you're suggesting. And the extent to which a state bans dissent matters a lot more than what dissent they ban.

This is absolutely false. All states have ways of either suppressing or banning dissent. There is no perfect free speech country that is even possible because the very idea is pure fantasy. The USA has its way of suppressing dissidents, China has its methods, every country does.

I think your promoting a false equivalency.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

This is absolutely false. All states have ways of either suppressing or banning dissent. There is no perfect free speech country that is even possible because the very idea is pure fantasy. The USA has its way of suppressing dissidents, China has its methods, every country does.

Every state does a little censorship, and a little violation of free speech, but some do very little, and some do quite a lot. The amount of censorship occurring is more important than the ideologies that censorship effects.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

The original is better tbh

Can't say I disagree. It has that certain 'something'. Must be the tears of Bolsheviks.

[Nakena]

The original is better tbh

Can't say I disagree. It has that certain 'something'. Must be the tears of Bolsheviks.

Something strong enough to sway your old signature and flag away. A powerful memetic force.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Something strong enough to sway your old signature and flag away. A powerful memetic force.

The Big fella joined the Freikorps today. No communists in our socdem paradise.

[Turbofolkia]

Something strong enough to sway your old signature and flag away. A powerful memetic force.

The Big fella joined the Freikorps today. No communists in our socdem paradise.

Lang was less of a social democrat and more of a hardline socialist himself though. Would be almost as bizarre as Gough Whitlam joining the Freikorps.

[Nakena]

The Big fella joined the Freikorps today. No communists in our socdem paradise.

Lang was less of a social democrat and more of a hardline socialist himself though. Would be almost as bizarre as Gough Whitlam joining the Freikorps.

Welcome to Bizarro World. Things might get even more bizarre. Soon.

You will see.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Lang was less of a social democrat and more of a hardline socialist himself though. Would be almost as bizarre as Gough Whitlam joining the Freikorps.

Uhhh, is this the same Jack Lang we're talking about? Jack Lang was a virulent anti-communist who was denounced as a social fascist by Australian socialists, consistently critiqued communist influence in the Labor party and literally made a political party called "Australian Labor Party (Anti-Communist)". Jack Lang was no friend to Bolshevism.

[Nakena]

Lang was less of a social democrat and more of a hardline socialist himself though. Would be almost as bizarre as Gough Whitlam joining the Freikorps.

Uhhh, is this the same Jack Lang we're talking about? Jack Lang was a virulent anti-communist who was denounced as a social fascist by Australian socialists, consistently critiqued communist influence in the Labor party and literally made a political party called "Australian Labor Party (Anti-Communist)". Jack Lang was no friend to Bolshevism.

Sounds like my kind of guy.

[Turbofolkia]

Lang was less of a social democrat and more of a hardline socialist himself though. Would be almost as bizarre as Gough Whitlam joining the Freikorps.

Uhhh, is this the same Jack Lang we're talking about? Jack Lang was a virulent anti-communist who was denounced as a social fascist by Australian socialists, consistently critiqued communist influence in the Labor party and literally made a political party called "Australian Labor Party (Anti-Communist)". Jack Lang was no friend to Bolshevism.

Sorry, wasn’t implying he was a Bolshevik or a Soviet sympathiser etc - just that his views and policies were quite hard left and socialist (at least economically) than just social democratic.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Sorry, wasn’t implying he was a Bolshevik or a Soviet sympathiser etc - just that his views and policies were quite hard left and socialist (at least economically) than just social democratic.

I fail to see how. Did he seek to overthrow the parliamentary system and institute worker rule? No, the closest he got to political change was by trying to abolish the undemocratic upper house of New South Wales. Was his Lang Plan an attempt to reform the economy into socialism? No, it was a response to the Great Depression which involved the cessation of interest repayments on debts to Britain, the creation of a "Goods standard" currency and Keynesian injection of money into the economy.

He was not a socialist, but an economic populist and social democrat.

[Turbofolkia]

Sorry, wasn’t implying he was a Bolshevik or a Soviet sympathiser etc - just that his views and policies were quite hard left and socialist (at least economically) than just social democratic.

I fail to see how. Did he seek to overthrow the parliamentary system and institute worker rule? No, the closest he got to political change was by trying to abolish the undemocratic upper house of New South Wales. Was his Lang Plan an attempt to reform the economy into socialism? No, it was a response to the Great Depression which involved the cessation of interest repayments on debts to Britain, the creation of a "Goods standard" currency and Keynesian injection of money into the economy.

He was not a socialist, but an economic populist and social democrat.

I don’t think socialism (at least democratic socialism) requires a complete overthrow of the Westminster system of responsible government. Lang was quite the radical even for his time and came to control NSW Labor by aligning himself with left-wing unions and Trades Hall.

I don’t dispute he was a populist, but the most prominent democratic socialists in the Australian context imo are Jack Lang and Gough Whitlam, while social democrats would be figures like Bob Hawke and John Cain.