Marxism-Leninism and "Authoritarian" Socialism is good

[The New California Republic]

Actually the reason people are scared of socialism is because of the First and Second Red Scare.

Fucking nonsense. People don't invoke the "Red Scares" as reasons for opposing the left; they more often than not mention the USSR with its gulags and the like. And that is exactly the stereotype about the left that Tankies like yourself are feeding.

It's commonsense for the united states to teach it's citizens to fight a foreign ideology.

That doesn't explain people in non-Western nations hating the USSR's brand of "socialism"...

[Grenartia]

Actually the reason people are scared of socialism is because of the First and Second Red Scare.

Fucking nonsense. People don't invoke the "Red Scares" as reasons for opposing the left; they more often than not mention the USSR with its gulags and the like. And that is exactly the stereotype about the left that Tankies like yourself are feeding.

It's commonsense for the united states to teach it's citizens to fight a foreign ideology.

That doesn't explain people in non-Western nations hating the USSR's brand of "socialism"...

Exactly this.

[Free Arabian Nation]

Actually the reason people are scared of socialism is because of the First and Second Red Scare.

Fucking nonsense. People don't invoke the "Red Scares" as reasons for opposing the left; they more often than not mention the USSR with its gulags and the like. And that is exactly the stereotype about the left that Tankies like yourself are feeding.

It's commonsense for the united states to teach it's citizens to fight a foreign ideology.

That doesn't explain people in non-Western nations hating the USSR's brand of "socialism"...

^

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

Profound quote of the day right here everyone.

And that's the ultimate problem with violent revolutions. The side that wins the revolution (assuming equal will to fight) is the side being led by the asshole with the most guns. And, typically, that asshole gets into a leadership position by being the WORST asshole of the lot.

Some individuals think that a violent revolution is like a coinflip. 50-50 chances. In reality, its like rolling a d20 and hoping for a nat20.

Especially as there is already empirical evidence that peaceful and nonviolent revolution have a far higher rate of meaningful success than armed insurgency from the getgo, as seen in the following text:
"What drives governments to crack down on and kill their own civilians in the context of popular uprisings? This is the topic of our newly-released special report with the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. In it, we explore why governments engage in mass killings – or the intentional killing of 1,000 or more civilian noncombatants – in the context of both violent and nonviolent mass uprisings. Among 308 popular uprisings since 1955, we find that mass killings are surprisingly common, yet they are strongly associated with certain types of resistance. More broadly (and strikingly), we find that characteristics of the uprisings are just as significant as features of the states they are confronting.

Specifically, armed uprisings are nearly three times as likely to elicit state violence: nearly 68% of violent uprisings (92 of 135) encounter mass killings while about 23% (40 of 173) of predominantly nonviolent movements do. We think this is because nonviolent resistance generally poses a lower threat of personal harm, lowering the likelihood that state security forces – those receiving orders to engage in mass killings – unquestioningly obey commands to employ widespread lethal force. Indeed, leaders who order their armed forces to crack down on unarmed civilians run the risk of defection and insubordination. In numerous cases, from Serbia to Egypt to Tunisia, critical turning points occurred when the military sided with civilians and ignored their orders to repress unarmed protesters. The possibility of losing the loyalty of security forces might ultimately deter leaders from launching mass atrocities in the first place. On the other hand, violent campaigns threaten the safety of incumbent leaders and security forces alike. This might inspire them to hold on to power at any cost, even ordering or carrying out a mass atrocity in an attempt to survive.

Moreover, we find that the likelihood of mass killings increases when foreign states provide material aid to dissidents. Violent insurgencies often rely on such assistance to generate money and accumulate weapons that are necessary to confront the regime. Nonviolent movements, however, often partner with non-governmental organizations that instead provide less overt forms of support. This might include knowledge-sharing and capacity-building efforts that yield more effective grassroots mobilization and repression management. When states provide sanctuary, money, or weapons to dissidents, as often happened during the Cold War, incumbent leaders and their security forces are more likely to view dissidents and their suspected civilian supporters as increasingly threatening foreign agents. Perceiving an uprising as an existential threat to the sovereignty of the country ultimately makes it likelier that security forces obey orders to engage in mass killings.

Similarly, we find that the likelihood of mass killings is greater when foreign states provide material aid to the governments the movements oppose. Iran and Russia providing assistant to the Assad government in Syria, for instance, certainly provided material and diplomatic cover for Assad’s regime to escalate levels of violence against Syrian dissidents.

Our research has important implications for activists seeking to challenge a regime while reducing the likelihood of mass atrocities. First, although it is the case that people involved in nonviolent uprisings often face beatings, arrests, and other forms of coercion (including isolated incidents of lethal violence), violent uprisings are linked to a much greater risk of large-scale civilian victimization. As such, sufficient planning, training, and preparation to maintain nonviolent discipline is key—especially (and paradoxically) when confronting brutal regimes.

Second, choices about whether or not to actively seek direct international aid are also important. Foreign material assistance to an uprising, whether violent or nonviolent, can work to dissidents’ disadvantage. By collaborating with foreign states, the movement might appear increasingly threatening to regime elites and their security forces. Although we cannot say for sure, other forms of external assistance may prove more useful. In Argentina and East Timor, for instance, foreign states supported the opposition not by sending money or arms, but by bringing attention to atrocities committed by the regime.

Moreover, dissidents should view with caution any attempts from foreign states to provide them with direct support (e.g. material or financial assistance) and should instead seek outside assistance on a selective basis where it helps to address specific needs or weaknesses (e.g. its capacity to manage repression or to enhance its tactical innovation).

Finally, campaigns and individual dissidents can collect information that might be useful for preventing mass atrocities in the future. There is a need for activists as well as domestic and international actors on the ground to meticulously record and collect relevant information including evidence of when, how, and in what way nonviolent mobilization and self-organization might have protected communities and reduced their exposure to mass violence. These data, in turn, would help both future dissidents and external actors to develop more effective policy instruments to prevent mass atrocities."
Source: http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2 ... uprisings/

[Communal concils]

I think that the brutality was necessary in many cases.

And you wonder why people have no interest in your policies amd ideology. But please, I would absolutely love to hear how the holodomor was necessary and justified, along with the millions of brutal killings and tortures that occurred under the Soviet regime.

The Holodmer was not necessary, and it was a mistake. However the Gulag system was needed in dealing with the White army and Monarchist, infact it was also needed for the war prisoners of the German Reich. The Soviets were doing what all nations do in periods of instability.

[Arecla]

Then do a non-violent revolution and save armed resistance for a last resort solution if the regime still remains entrenched and shows no signs of relenting. Problem solved.

So nine times out of ten you'll just get a violent revolution regardless. Literally, nobody does a violent revolution because they want to do it. The October Revolution started with the Bolsheviks simply assuming power, but obviously the Whites wouldn't let that just happen.

Unless the ruling class can somehow maintain their power (at least partially) in the next regime it's very unlikely that they'll just stand down. A socialist revolution explicitly wanting to strip the ruling class from its power will almost certainly be contested.

Maybe if the hardliners weren't attempting to constantly and repeatedly obstruct his policies or outright water them down and finally attempt to overthrow his government after they realized the time of stalinism truly is over (Which unwittingly contributed to destabilizing the USSR to such a extent that numerous constituent SSRs such as Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltics refused to ratify the NUT as they believed that Moscow was too unrekiable and unstable to guarantee they wouldn't attempt to recentralize and thus Belavezha and Yeltsinism happened), then we would have seen much better results than the middlegrounding Gorby had to do to appease both the reformists and hardliners. But alas, history happened.

Sure, by the 1980s the Soviet Union was a pressure cooker but Gorbachev's reforms only exacerbated the situation. Stuff such as private companies buying from state companies and then reselling those stuff at higher prices, the collapse of the planning system without a plan to replace it, etc. The main reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union was Gorbachev's fast track political liberalization. That's why China still exists while the USSR doesn't.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

And you wonder why people have no interest in your policies amd ideology. But please, I would absolutely love to hear how the holodomor was necessary and justified, along with the millions of brutal killings and tortures that occurred under the Soviet regime.

The Holodmer was not necessary, and it was a mistake. However the Gulag system was needed in dealing with the White army and Monarchist, infact it was also needed for the war prisoners of the German Reich. The Soviets were doing what all nations do in periods of instability.

Or just simply deport the White Monarchists out of Soviet Russia and sentence German war criminals to life without parole. Common sense. No need to construct bootleg concentration camps (Which makes you no different than the Nazis in this specific instance) and literally resurrect modernday slavery.

[Free Arabian Nation]

And you wonder why people have no interest in your policies amd ideology. But please, I would absolutely love to hear how the holodomor was necessary and justified, along with the millions of brutal killings and tortures that occurred under the Soviet regime.

The Holodmer was not necessary, and it was a mistake. However the Gulag system was needed in dealing with the White army and Monarchist, infact it was also needed for the war prisoners of the German Reich. The Soviets were doing what all nations do in periods of instability.

Tankies: Literally supports barbaric, slave-labour, camps.

Also Tankies: "Why does nobody like Auth. Socialism?"

[Communal concils]

Actually the reason people are scared of socialism is because of the First and Second Red Scare.

Fucking nonsense. People don't invoke the "Red Scares" as reasons for opposing the left; they more often than not mention the USSR with its gulags and the like. And that is exactly the stereotype about the left that Tankies like yourself are feeding.

It's commonsense for the united states to teach it's citizens to fight a foreign ideology.

That doesn't explain people in non-Western nations hating the USSR's brand of "socialism"...

Yes they do. The U.S Government sawed the Soviets as a threat to national security. The fear of Marxism-Leninism is because of it's tendency to revolt. Monarchs, landowners and upper middle class of various societies feared that the poor would rise up under that ideology.

[Heloin]

And you wonder why people have no interest in your policies amd ideology. But please, I would absolutely love to hear how the holodomor was necessary and justified, along with the millions of brutal killings and tortures that occurred under the Soviet regime.

The Holodmer was not necessary, and it was a mistake. However the Gulag system was needed in dealing with the White army and Monarchist, infact it was also needed for the war prisoners of the German Reich. The Soviets were doing what all nations do in periods of instability.

The Holodomor was the result of deliberate policies by the Soviet State, I'd hardly call that a mistake.

Yes of course, it was really needed to crush the White Army who had only lost the war and had ceased to exist a decade before the creation of them during a period of unbelievable stability with any instability mostly due to Stalin's purges. Clearly they were necessary.

[The New California Republic]

the Gulag system was needed in dealing with the White army and Monarchist, infact it was also needed for the war prisoners of the German Reich. The Soviets were doing what all nations do in periods of instability.

...

...when have liberal democracies sent people to gulags to either be worked to death or freeze to death during periods of instability?

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

Then do a non-violent revolution and save armed resistance for a last resort solution if the regime still remains entrenched and shows no signs of relenting. Problem solved.

So nine times out of ten you'll just get a violent revolution regardless. Literally, nobody does a violent revolution because they want to do it. The October Revolution started with the Bolsheviks simply assuming power, but obviously the Whites wouldn't let that just happen.

Unless the ruling class can somehow maintain their power (at least partially) in the next regime it's very unlikely that they'll just stand down. A socialist revolution explicitly wanting to strip the ruling class from its power will almost certainly be contested.

Maybe if the hardliners weren't attempting to constantly and repeatedly obstruct his policies or outright water them down and finally attempt to overthrow his government after they realized the time of stalinism truly is over (Which unwittingly contributed to destabilizing the USSR to such a extent that numerous constituent SSRs such as Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltics refused to ratify the NUT as they believed that Moscow was too unrekiable and unstable to guarantee they wouldn't attempt to recentralize and thus Belavezha and Yeltsinism happened), then we would have seen much better results than the middlegrounding Gorby had to do to appease both the reformists and hardliners. But alas, history happened.

Sure, by the 1980s the Soviet Union was a pressure cooker but Gorbachev's reforms only exacerbated the situation. Stuff such as private companies buying from state companies and then reselling those stuff at higher prices, the collapse of the planning system without a plan to replace it, etc. The main reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union was Gorbachev's fast track political liberalization. That's why China still exists while the USSR doesn't.

Difference is that if you maintain a peaceful approach 99% of the time and only go for armed resistance at the last 1%, then you will have far higher public opinion for your cause and a far reduced chance of soldiers actually obeying the order to fire upon your marches if they truly see they have nothing to fear for their safety or livelihoods and that contrary to the regime's propaganda, they are not "rootless mass murderers who wanna destroy our culture and values", which in turn produces a massive pool of potential civilians who will make up your divisions and regiments when "Plan B" comes in and you have to start shooting.

While if you go violent 100% of the time and indiscriminately fire at everything that moves, and damage civilian infrastructure while you are it, public opinion will be hostile towards you at best and hateful at worst, and thus the regime will have more legitimacy than ever before and loyalists will crush you like a bug as the propaganda would be "proven correct" and you fell right into their trap. Only rarely does a dictator still cling on to power after an effective and protracted campaign of nonviolent mass protests.

[The New California Republic]

Fucking nonsense. People don't invoke the "Red Scares" as reasons for opposing the left; they more often than not mention the USSR with its gulags and the like. And that is exactly the stereotype about the left that Tankies like yourself are feeding.

That doesn't explain people in non-Western nations hating the USSR's brand of "socialism"...

Yes they do. The U.S Government sawed the Soviets as a threat to national security. The fear of Marxism-Leninism is because of it's tendency to revolt. Monarchs, landowners and upper middle class of various societies feared that the poor would rise up under that ideology.

You could actually try to answer what I wrote, instead of imagining I said something else and formulating a response based on said imaginings. Just a suggestion...

[Heloin]

Fucking nonsense. People don't invoke the "Red Scares" as reasons for opposing the left; they more often than not mention the USSR with its gulags and the like. And that is exactly the stereotype about the left that Tankies like yourself are feeding.


That doesn't explain people in non-Western nations hating the USSR's brand of "socialism"...

Yes they do. The U.S Government sawed the Soviets as a threat to national security. The fear of Marxism-Leninism is because of it's tendency to revolt. Monarchs, landowners and upper middle class of various societies feared that the poor would rise up under that ideology.

As opposed to people who live under Authoritarian Socialist regimes who would never dare revolt.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

And you wonder why people have no interest in your policies amd ideology. But please, I would absolutely love to hear how the holodomor was necessary and justified, along with the millions of brutal killings and tortures that occurred under the Soviet regime.

The Holodmer was not necessary, and it was a mistake. However the Gulag system was needed in dealing with the White army and Monarchist, infact it was also needed for the war prisoners of the German Reich. The Soviets were doing what all nations do in periods of instability.

That is an odd way to describe purposeful policies directed st Ukrainian.

That really doesn't explain the, say, mass deportations of Estonians including children resulting in around 10%of the country dying.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

Yes they do. The U.S Government sawed the Soviets as a threat to national security. The fear of Marxism-Leninism is because of it's tendency to revolt. Monarchs, landowners and upper middle class of various societies feared that the poor would rise up under that ideology.

As opposed to people who live under Authoritarian Socialist regimes who would never dare revolt.

#RememberTheSpring

[Communal concils]

the Gulag system was needed in dealing with the White army and Monarchist, infact it was also needed for the war prisoners of the German Reich. The Soviets were doing what all nations do in periods of instability.

...

...when have liberal democracies sent people to gulags to either be worked to death or freeze to death during periods of instability?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_Island

That Penal colony didn't end until 1953, and that happened under the Third and Fourth Republic of France. Which were Liberal democratic Governments.

[Communal concils]

Yes they do. The U.S Government sawed the Soviets as a threat to national security. The fear of Marxism-Leninism is because of it's tendency to revolt. Monarchs, landowners and upper middle class of various societies feared that the poor would rise up under that ideology.

As opposed to people who live under Authoritarian Socialist regimes who would never dare revolt.

Notice that these revolutions happened after the death of stalin's and Mao's death. These revolts happened when the new leaders implement new policies. So, They felled to Revisionism. My main criticism of these countries is that they don't have restrictions on ruler policies. I would support a centralize sate that is ruled by a group , a group that purges all possible revisons in state.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

...

...when have liberal democracies sent people to gulags to either be worked to death or freeze to death during periods of instability?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_Island

That Penal colony didn't end until 1953, and that happened under the Third and Fourth Republic of France. Which were Liberal democratic Governments.

"Opened in 1852, the Devil's Island system received convicts deported from all parts of the Second French Empire, and was infamous for its harsh treatment of detainees, with a death rate of 75% at their worst, until it was closed down in 1953."
"Liberal democracy"
"In 1938, the French government stopped sending prisoners to Devil's Island. In 1953, the prison system was finally closed entirely. Most of the prisoners at the time returned to metropolitan France, although some chose to remain in French Guiana."
Were the Gulags permanently closed down and all prisoners retroactively pardoned at any point during the USSR's history asides from Gorby?

[Arecla]

the Gulag system was needed in dealing with the White army and Monarchist, infact it was also needed for the war prisoners of the German Reich. The Soviets were doing what all nations do in periods of instability.

...

...when have liberal democracies sent people to gulags to either be worked to death or freeze to death during periods of instability?

The Western countries benefit from extracting the wealth from lesser developed countries and so can maintain a good standard of living. Regardless of your type of system people won't revolt if they have a good life.

That being said, you're ignoring how not all liberal democracies benefit from being high up in the tier chain. During the Cold War, the US has had a habit of propping up right-wing dictatorships in places where leftists were gaining ground democratically, despite all their rhetoric of "democracy vs communism." Those right-wing dictatorships also had a habit of purging leftists, though to be fair left-wing dictatorships did the same. But just pointing out that it did happen. Also worth noting that the "liberal-democracies" had plans for purging their left-wing in the case it was necessary.

[The New California Republic]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_Island

That Penal colony didn't end until 1953, and that happened under the Third and Fourth Republic of France. Which were Liberal democratic Governments.

"Opened in 1852, the Devil's Island system received convicts deported from all parts of the Second French Empire, and was infamous for its harsh treatment of detainees, with a death rate of 75% at their worst, until it was closed down in 1953."
"Liberal democracy"
"In 1938, the French government stopped sending prisoners to Devil's Island. In 1953, the prison system was finally closed entirely. Most of the prisoners at the time returned to metropolitan France, although some chose to remain in French Guiana."
Were the Gulags permanently closed down and all prisoners retroactively pardoned at any point during the USSR's history asides from Gorby?

Pretty much beat me to the punch with this.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

As opposed to people who live under Authoritarian Socialist regimes who would never dare revolt.

Notice that these revolutions happened after the death of stalin's and Mao's death. These revolts happened when the new leaders implement new policies. So, They felled to Revisionism. My main criticism of these countries is that they don't have restrictions on ruler policies. I would support a centralize sate that is ruled by a group , a group that purges all possible revisons in state.

Yeah, because having actual direct democracy, freedom of thought, political expression, and forming a trade union, a vibrant culture without Tsarist-esque censorship, an ability to see the world without arbitrary walls closing you in a prison, or a democratic socialist economy and production of consumer goods is the evil virus of Satan and thus it warrants directly overthrowing governments of your own comrades in the same fashion the CIA did during Operation Condor, Gladio, and the Dirty War in Argentina.

There is a reason why I disdain tankies like you. You are the reason why my country is a fucking mess thanks to this day, because stalinist policies inevitably produce corruption, cronyism, fall in living standards, erosion of human rights, and of course, social cohesion. We would have long overcame this economic malaise if we actually succeeded in building socialism with a human face, but apparently, even that is "no different from capitalism".

[Grenartia]

Yes they do. The U.S Government sawed the Soviets as a threat to national security. The fear of Marxism-Leninism is because of it's tendency to revolt. Monarchs, landowners and upper middle class of various societies feared that the poor would rise up under that ideology.

As opposed to people who live under Authoritarian Socialist regimes who would never dare revolt.

Really, all the tankie leaders should consider themselves lucky they didn't share in the Ceaușescus' fate.

[Communal concils]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_Island

That Penal colony didn't end until 1953, and that happened under the Third and Fourth Republic of France. Which were Liberal democratic Governments.

"Opened in 1852, the Devil's Island system received convicts deported from all parts of the Second French Empire, and was infamous for its harsh treatment of detainees, with a death rate of 75% at their worst, until it was closed down in 1953."
"Liberal democracy"
"In 1938, the French government stopped sending prisoners to Devil's Island. In 1953, the prison system was finally closed entirely. Most of the prisoners at the time returned to metropolitan France, although some chose to remain in French Guiana."
Were the Gulags permanently closed down and all prisoners retroactively pardoned at any point during the USSR's history asides from Gorby?

That doesn't debunk my claim. The Third French Republic was started in 1870, so there were enough years of a democracy sending people into a Penal colony.

also the Gulag ended in January 25, 1960. here's sources-------------> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag#After_World_War_II

[Orange-Transvaal]

this post=edgy 13 year old commie saying that stalin did nothing wrong+socialism best because memes.