NationStates

Posted: **Sat May 30, 2020 7:56 am**

Kubra wrote:So, we again come down to bunkers. We can of course state its use-value to the general population: none.

In fact they only obtained use-value after they were abandoned, as they started to be used as storage spaces and improvised housing etc.

Posted: **Sat May 30, 2020 10:19 pm**

Kubra wrote:impossible to resupply, easy targets for air assets (or even just artillery), and providing little more than cover and concealment from small arms fire.

From the same lying Wikipedia: "He observed how dome-shaped fortifications were virtually impervious to artillery fire and bombs, which simply ricocheted off the dome".

Kubra wrote:Now housing

That was already covered, people had guaranteed a house, I already told Novus this before.

Kubra wrote:bunkers were useful to the politburo as a means of militarising society. That would most certainly represent a form of surplus-value extraction.

The creation of a people's military isn't bad, it's helpful in case there's a need to remove infiltrators in the state and to prevent invasion training young people. In case the state turns tyrannical, this also allows them to overthrow them. But this didn't happen, what happened was that revisionists took power with Ramiz Alia inside the party after the death of Hoxha, like the USSR started with Khruschev after the death of Stalin until its total collapse decades after. There aren't enough mechanisms of vigilance, accountability and culture in the people along with the ideological formation, all this allows these takeovers in the party; these people inside try to appear red and when they're given the positions they just erase everything with their "moderation" and center-leftism.

There's not a personal gain in bunkers, it's a defense benefit. Now, as Novus does, that you could argue that in a marginalist economic approach you can say... "the opportunity cost is worse than using the labour/concrete to build a professional military so it's exploitation". This is alien and forced, you're evaluating a situation in the future which we have to experiment, they were taking a democratic decision to benefit everyone according to their specific situation. An error doesn't make it exploitation, the error would affect the whole country including the entire party, and taking into account there's no exploiter bourgeoisie and over time not even taxes, it makes the criticism even more absurd, and even more absurd saying capitalist countries do this better when they waste the people's budget everytime and not only in public programs but in luxuries and their client networks. Yet, Novus can't prove it was really a bad decision since he quotes Wikipedia with sources and admits it, the airborne thing doesn't appear in Hoxha's selected works (it's a source of dialogues), it's been proven they were surrounded by enemies in the 50s and in the 70s with China's split. The critique consists in speculation about if the resources could be used to build better defended buildings, better weapons and equipment or a more professional military while they make it more loyal.

The next thing in this logic, I don't know. We try to save someone in a hospital and we try to operate and put medicine, but dies and something is wasted. Then calling this extraction of surplus-value because the opportunity cost for saving resources could be simply not trying to save the person. For that we'd have to see the future.

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2020 9:12 am**

Byeclase wrote:
Kubra wrote:impossible to resupply, easy targets for air assets (or even just artillery), and providing little more than cover and concealment from small arms fire.

From the same lying Wikipedia: "He observed how dome-shaped fortifications were virtually impervious to artillery fire and bombs, which simply ricocheted off the dome".

Kubra wrote:Now housing

That was already covered, people had guaranteed a house, I already told Novus this before.

Kubra wrote:bunkers were useful to the politburo as a means of militarising society. That would most certainly represent a form of surplus-value extraction.

The creation of a people's military isn't bad, it's helpful in case there's a need to remove infiltrators in the state and to prevent invasion training young people. In case the state turns tyrannical, this also allows them to overthrow them. But this didn't happen, what happened was that revisionists took power with Ramiz Alia inside the party after the death of Hoxha, like the USSR started with Khruschev after the death of Stalin until its total collapse decades after. There aren't enough mechanisms of vigilance, accountability and culture in the people along with the ideological formation, all this allows these takeovers in the party; these people inside try to appear red and when they're given the positions they just erase everything with their "moderation" and center-leftism.

There's not a personal gain in bunkers, it's a defense benefit. Now, as Novus does, that you could argue that in a marginalist economic approach you can say... "the opportunity cost is worse than using the labour/concrete to build a professional military so it's exploitation". This is alien and forced, you're evaluating a situation in the future which we have to experiment, they were taking a democratic decision to benefit everyone according to their specific situation. An error doesn't make it exploitation, the error would affect the whole country including the entire party, and taking into account there's no exploiter bourgeoisie and over time not even taxes, it makes the criticism even more absurd, and even more absurd saying capitalist countries do this better when they waste the people's budget everytime and not only in public programs but in luxuries and their client networks. Yet, Novus can't prove it was really a bad decision since he quotes Wikipedia with sources and admits it, the airborne thing doesn't appear in Hoxha's selected works (it's a source of dialogues), it's been proven they were surrounded by enemies in the 50s and in the 70s with China's split. The critique consists in speculation about if the resources could be used to build better defended buildings, better weapons and equipment or a more professional military while they make it more loyal.

The next thing in this logic, I don't know. We try to save someone in a hospital and we try to operate and put medicine, but dies and something is wasted. Then calling this extraction of surplus-value because the opportunity cost for saving resources could be simply not trying to save the person. For that we'd have to see the future.

You still have failed to address the logistics issue.
The people in the bunkers have no ammunition and you cannot get any too them.
Also that observation had become obsolete latter as weapons specifically for penetrating/destroying bunkers had been developed. They would provide some coverage against artillery fire and bombs that was not targeted at a individual bunker and designed to destroy them. But that is it.
Like I pointed out actual a mobile attacker could easily overrun the bunkers before they were supplied and tanks and snipers could defeat them quite easily even if somehow they were.

As a pointed out a person not in a bunker has the advantage over a person in a bunker vs a tank.

The PRC did not border Albanian either. It had no ability to launch a conventional attack. The much superior Yugoslavia Army would still win if it had attacked.

(and housing was in theory guaranteed but the quality of the housing was poor, and people crammed into tiny housing, simply guaranteeing something on paper does not eliminate shortages).

The problem is the claim this was some democratic decisions by a classless society which is so far removed from reality to be laughable.
Rather it was a decision by a small minority in power, in part to keep in power and in part because they were delusional.

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2020 1:02 pm**

I think we don't have nothing more to talk since you admitted using Wikipedia and you keep making up stuff.

http://ciml.250x.com/archive/hoxha.html

Scroll down, you see the 70 volumes of Enver Hoxha as complete works. They have only until the volume 30 (in Albanian).

Since I don't know Albanian yet and there are volumes and books that I didn't read yet... I lack specific knowledge about all that. Probably they are there instead of the selected works, but today we can access to the 30 volumes and not the 70.

There's still an ongoing work in 2020.
This doesn't mean to give up, just that it'll take time to perfect all this. Over time these specific questions would get more common if somehow the ideology starts getting famous and they'll be easily accessible.

Marx and Engels are 50 volumes (in English), 40 and something (don't remember well) in German. Each one around 600-1200 pages. Definitely it's not a work of a few months or days.

"And what does it mean to raise a dedicated political leader faithful to the state? He (neutral) needs ten, no, fifteen years so we can speak of a state leader, capable of continuing with this torch". -Stalin, December of 1952.

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2020 3:07 pm**

Byeclase wrote:
Kubra wrote:impossible to resupply, easy targets for air assets (or even just artillery), and providing little more than cover and concealment from small arms fire.

From the same lying Wikipedia: "He observed how dome-shaped fortifications were virtually impervious to artillery fire and bombs, which simply ricocheted off the dome".

Kubra wrote:Now housing

That was already covered, people had guaranteed a house, I already told Novus this before.

Kubra wrote:bunkers were useful to the politburo as a means of militarising society. That would most certainly represent a form of surplus-value extraction.

The creation of a people's military isn't bad, it's helpful in case there's a need to remove infiltrators in the state and to prevent invasion training young people. In case the state turns tyrannical, this also allows them to overthrow them. But this didn't happen, what happened was that revisionists took power with Ramiz Alia inside the party after the death of Hoxha, like the USSR started with Khruschev after the death of Stalin until its total collapse decades after. There aren't enough mechanisms of vigilance, accountability and culture in the people along with the ideological formation, all this allows these takeovers in the party; these people inside try to appear red and when they're given the positions they just erase everything with their "moderation" and center-leftism.

There's not a personal gain in bunkers, it's a defense benefit. Now, as Novus does, that you could argue that in a marginalist economic approach you can say... "the opportunity cost is worse than using the labour/concrete to build a professional military so it's exploitation". This is alien and forced, you're evaluating a situation in the future which we have to experiment, they were taking a democratic decision to benefit everyone according to their specific situation. An error doesn't make it exploitation, the error would affect the whole country including the entire party, and taking into account there's no exploiter bourgeoisie and over time not even taxes, it makes the criticism even more absurd, and even more absurd saying capitalist countries do this better when they waste the people's budget everytime and not only in public programs but in luxuries and their client networks. Yet, Novus can't prove it was really a bad decision since he quotes Wikipedia with sources and admits it, the airborne thing doesn't appear in Hoxha's selected works (it's a source of dialogues), it's been proven they were surrounded by enemies in the 50s and in the 70s with China's split. The critique consists in speculation about if the resources could be used to build better defended buildings, better weapons and equipment or a more professional military while they make it more loyal.

The next thing in this logic, I don't know. We try to save someone in a hospital and we try to operate and put medicine, but dies and something is wasted. Then calling this extraction of surplus-value because the opportunity cost for saving resources could be simply not trying to save the person. For that we'd have to see the future.

K let's stick on bunkers for now, this is important.
The cold war involved a lot of, well, wars. Hot ones. Even cold ones that didn't actually happen but did involve building fortifications. No one, um, no one really built that many bunkers in these period. Weapons were developed for attacking fortifications, but these were for ones with reinforced concrete structures up to and beyond 2 metres in thickness, normal ol' pillboxes simply weren't on anyone's radar. Why do you suppose this was the case?

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2020 3:28 pm**

Kubra wrote:Seriously did you guys think I said bunkers just because I like the word

Authoritarian socialism sucks pretty bad. ngl

I feel like anyone who shills for it should have to live under it permanently as a plebeian.

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2020 4:10 pm**

Byeclase wrote:I think we don't have nothing more to talk since you admitted using Wikipedia and you keep making up stuff.

http://ciml.250x.com/archive/hoxha.html

Scroll down, you see the 70 volumes of Enver Hoxha as complete works. They have only until the volume 30 (in Albanian).

Since I don't know Albanian yet and there are volumes and books that I didn't read yet... I lack specific knowledge about all that. Probably they are there instead of the selected works, but today we can access to the 30 volumes and not the 70.

There's still an ongoing work in 2020.
This doesn't mean to give up, just that it'll take time to perfect all this. Over time these specific questions would get more common if somehow the ideology starts getting famous and they'll be easily accessible.

Marx and Engels are 50 volumes (in English), 40 and something (don't remember well) in German. Each one around 600-1200 pages. Definitely it's not a work of a few months or days.

"And what does it mean to raise a dedicated political leader faithful to the state? He (neutral) needs ten, no, fifteen years so we can speak of a state leader, capable of continuing with this torch". -Stalin, December of 1952.

Using Wikipedia is not a crime, especially when using a subject not warranting to much detailed research. It is a good overview and you did not show it being wrong.

I do not need to read all his crap to criticize his military insane theories or the actual practice of his rule. What people write about themselves is a problematic source anyways because people are rarely truly honest about themselves and capable of honest and complete introspection especially in their official published work.

If I wanted a source about the Trail of Tears it would not be sufficient to say “but Andrew Jackson said it was good”. The would only be sufficient to show he though it was good, it would say nothing to whether or not it actually was good because he was wrong.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:43 pm**

Also hoo boy there's some real mental gymnastics involved with having a "people's army" as an "anti-revisionist" position, seeing as it was Stalin himself who opposed such a thing and Trotsky who originally supported it.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:48 pm**

So, I recently did a bit of lurking around off-site leftist circles online, and I realized something. I’m starting to feel upset. About leftism. I’m starting to feel ashamed that I’ve joined a community that has, at least in my time as a part of it, been either hopelessly idealistic, or vengeful and petty, or both. I recognize that most leftists aren’t like that. I’m not like that, most of you aren’t like that, but there are those who are. I’ve realized something I should have known since the start. We’re radicals. That isn’t necessary a bad thing, but it’s what we are. At the very least, it’s what we socialists and communists are. I find myself drifting back into social democracy, albeit a much more pessimistic version than the social democracy I supported before. I’m questioning my beliefs, and I’m starting to see why leftism has a stigma around it. Why people give you weird looks when you call yourself a socialist. On more than one occasion, I heard people go so far as to defend real, actual, rioting, destruction and violence. And I don’t mean against the bourgeoisie. I mean against regular people. Against proletarians. Given the recent police shooting that happened in my home state, it’s hitting closer to home than ever.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:49 pm**

Kubra wrote:Also hoo boy there's some real mental gymnastics involved with having a "people's army" as an "anti-revisionist" position, seeing as it was Stalin himself who opposed such a thing and Trotsky who originally supported it.

>when you were basically the founder and commander of the Red Army but some mustachioed man takes it over and tries to kill you.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:54 pm**

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:
Kubra wrote:Also hoo boy there's some real mental gymnastics involved with having a "people's army" as an "anti-revisionist" position, seeing as it was Stalin himself who opposed such a thing and Trotsky who originally supported it.

>when you were basically the founder and commander of the Red Army but some mustachioed man takes it over and tries to kill you.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:57 pm**

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:So, I recently did a bit of lurking around off-site leftist circles online, and I realized something. I’m starting to feel upset. About leftism. I’m starting to feel ashamed that I’ve joined a community that has, at least in my time as a part of it, been either hopelessly idealistic, or vengeful and petty, or both. I recognize that most leftists aren’t like that. I’m not like that, most of you aren’t like that, but there are those who are. I’ve realized something I should have known since the start. We’re radicals. That isn’t necessary a bad thing, but it’s what we are. At the very least, it’s what we socialists and communists are. I find myself drifting back into social democracy, albeit a much more pessimistic version than the social democracy I supported before. I’m questioning my beliefs, and I’m starting to see why leftism has a stigma around it. Why people give you weird looks when you call yourself a socialist. On more than one occasion, I heard people go so far as to defend real, actual, rioting, destruction and violence. And I don’t mean against the bourgeoisie. I mean against regular people. Against proletarians. Given the recent police shooting that happened in my home state, it’s hitting closer to home than ever.

hey go right wing, join a pentacostal church, you'll see that it ain't a matter of wings. Folks get funny in certain milleu's.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:58 pm**

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:So, I recently did a bit of lurking around off-site leftist circles online, and I realized something. I’m starting to feel upset. About leftism. I’m starting to feel ashamed that I’ve joined a community that has, at least in my time as a part of it, been either hopelessly idealistic, or vengeful and petty, or both. I recognize that most leftists aren’t like that. I’m not like that, most of you aren’t like that, but there are those who are. I’ve realized something I should have known since the start. We’re radicals. That isn’t necessary a bad thing, but it’s what we are. At the very least, it’s what we socialists and communists are. I find myself drifting back into social democracy, albeit a much more pessimistic version than the social democracy I supported before. I’m questioning my beliefs, and I’m starting to see why leftism has a stigma around it. Why people give you weird looks when you call yourself a socialist. On more than one occasion, I heard people go so far as to defend real, actual, rioting, destruction and violence. And I don’t mean against the bourgeoisie. I mean against regular people. Against proletarians. Given the recent police shooting that happened in my home state, it’s hitting closer to home than ever.

*lurks in
Exactly what happened to me. Used to be hardcore commie, then democratic socialist, now I’m identifying closer to socdem. See the pattern?

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:02 pm**

Kubra wrote:
West Leas Oros 2 wrote:So, I recently did a bit of lurking around off-site leftist circles online, and I realized something. I’m starting to feel upset. About leftism. I’m starting to feel ashamed that I’ve joined a community that has, at least in my time as a part of it, been either hopelessly idealistic, or vengeful and petty, or both. I recognize that most leftists aren’t like that. I’m not like that, most of you aren’t like that, but there are those who are. I’ve realized something I should have known since the start. We’re radicals. That isn’t necessary a bad thing, but it’s what we are. At the very least, it’s what we socialists and communists are. I find myself drifting back into social democracy, albeit a much more pessimistic version than the social democracy I supported before. I’m questioning my beliefs, and I’m starting to see why leftism has a stigma around it. Why people give you weird looks when you call yourself a socialist. On more than one occasion, I heard people go so far as to defend real, actual, rioting, destruction and violence. And I don’t mean against the bourgeoisie. I mean against regular people. Against proletarians. Given the recent police shooting that happened in my home state, it’s hitting closer to home than ever.
hey go right wing, join a pentacostal church, you'll see that it ain't a matter of wings. Folks get funny in certain milleu's.

I’m not denying that the Right doesn’t have its own things to be ashamed of. Far from it, they probably have more skeletons in their closet than us, but I’m not trying to reform the right wing. I feel ashamed because I want leftism to be better.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:04 pm**

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:So, I recently did a bit of lurking around off-site leftist circles online, and I realized something. I’m starting to feel upset. About leftism. I’m starting to feel ashamed that I’ve joined a community that has, at least in my time as a part of it, been either hopelessly idealistic, or vengeful and petty, or both. I recognize that most leftists aren’t like that. I’m not like that, most of you aren’t like that, but there are those who are. I’ve realized something I should have known since the start. We’re radicals. That isn’t necessary a bad thing, but it’s what we are. At the very least, it’s what we socialists and communists are. I find myself drifting back into social democracy, albeit a much more pessimistic version than the social democracy I supported before. I’m questioning my beliefs, and I’m starting to see why leftism has a stigma around it. Why people give you weird looks when you call yourself a socialist. On more than one occasion, I heard people go so far as to defend real, actual, rioting, destruction and violence. And I don’t mean against the bourgeoisie. I mean against regular people. Against proletarians. Given the recent police shooting that happened in my home state, it’s hitting closer to home than ever.

I pretty much left the ancom community once I realized (1) how little difference there was between ancom ideas of praxis and pre-Marxist utopian socialists (2) how most ancoms have basically no care for how to reach their goals and at least say that they'd be okay with dying/going to prison for their cause even if the cause wasn't eventually reached.

I determined that way too many ancoms/ansynds/left anarchists in general are either larpers who don't realize they're larpers or champagne socialists who feel that the more "radical" their views are the more "cred" they get from the proletariat they dream of being a part of.

I've mostly settled with being a demsoc Wobblyist because unlike basically everyone else on the far-left, the Wobblies actually get shit done and have a reasonable expectation of success in the event they suddenly see a huge group of people ideologically allied with them.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:06 pm**

Cisairse wrote:
West Leas Oros 2 wrote:So, I recently did a bit of lurking around off-site leftist circles online, and I realized something. I’m starting to feel upset. About leftism. I’m starting to feel ashamed that I’ve joined a community that has, at least in my time as a part of it, been either hopelessly idealistic, or vengeful and petty, or both. I recognize that most leftists aren’t like that. I’m not like that, most of you aren’t like that, but there are those who are. I’ve realized something I should have known since the start. We’re radicals. That isn’t necessary a bad thing, but it’s what we are. At the very least, it’s what we socialists and communists are. I find myself drifting back into social democracy, albeit a much more pessimistic version than the social democracy I supported before. I’m questioning my beliefs, and I’m starting to see why leftism has a stigma around it. Why people give you weird looks when you call yourself a socialist. On more than one occasion, I heard people go so far as to defend real, actual, rioting, destruction and violence. And I don’t mean against the bourgeoisie. I mean against regular people. Against proletarians. Given the recent police shooting that happened in my home state, it’s hitting closer to home than ever.

I pretty much left the ancom community once I realized (1) how little difference there was between ancom ideas of praxis and pre-Marxist utopian socialists (2) how most ancoms have basically no care for how to reach their goals and at least say that they'd be okay with dying/going to prison for their cause even if the cause wasn't eventually reached.

I determined that way too many ancoms/ansynds/left anarchists in general are either larpers who don't realize they're larpers or champagne socialists who feel that the more "radical" their views are the more "cred" they get from the proletariat they dream of being a part of.

I've mostly settled with being a demsoc Wobblyist because unlike basically everyone else on the far-left, the Wobblies actually get shit done and have a reasonable expectation of success in the event they suddenly see a huge group of people ideologically allied with them.

Ancoms... hoo boy... between them and tankies, they make up most of the vitriolic idiocy I’m talking about.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:07 pm**

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:So, I recently did a bit of lurking around off-site leftist circles online, and I realized something. I’m starting to feel upset. About leftism. I’m starting to feel ashamed that I’ve joined a community that has, at least in my time as a part of it, been either hopelessly idealistic, or vengeful and petty, or both. I recognize that most leftists aren’t like that. I’m not like that, most of you aren’t like that, but there are those who are. I’ve realized something I should have known since the start. We’re radicals. That isn’t necessary a bad thing, but it’s what we are. At the very least, it’s what we socialists and communists are. I find myself drifting back into social democracy, albeit a much more pessimistic version than the social democracy I supported before. I’m questioning my beliefs, and I’m starting to see why leftism has a stigma around it. Why people give you weird looks when you call yourself a socialist. On more than one occasion, I heard people go so far as to defend real, actual, rioting, destruction and violence. And I don’t mean against the bourgeoisie. I mean against regular people. Against proletarians. Given the recent police shooting that happened in my home state, it’s hitting closer to home than ever.

Policy will always be a compromise between the way things ought to be and the way things are. Social democracy is achievable and sustainable, so is a good aim for national governments. More radical ideas are better pursued at a more local level, where they can directly engage with people and remain out of the hands of capitalists.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:07 pm**

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:
Cisairse wrote:
I pretty much left the ancom community once I realized (1) how little difference there was between ancom ideas of praxis and pre-Marxist utopian socialists (2) how most ancoms have basically no care for how to reach their goals and at least say that they'd be okay with dying/going to prison for their cause even if the cause wasn't eventually reached.

I determined that way too many ancoms/ansynds/left anarchists in general are either larpers who don't realize they're larpers or champagne socialists who feel that the more "radical" their views are the more "cred" they get from the proletariat they dream of being a part of.

I've mostly settled with being a demsoc Wobblyist because unlike basically everyone else on the far-left, the Wobblies actually get shit done and have a reasonable expectation of success in the event they suddenly see a huge group of people ideologically allied with them.

Ancoms... hoo boy... between them and tankies, they make up most of the vitriolic idiocy I’m talking about.

I consider myself a scientific leftist, anarchism is incredibly utopian in my opinion.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:07 pm**

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:Ancoms... hoo boy... between them and tankies, they make up most of the vitriolic idiocy I’m talking about.

Full-blown tankies are relatively rare though.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:16 pm**

Kubra wrote:Also hoo boy there's some real mental gymnastics involved with having a "people's army" as an "anti-revisionist" position, seeing as it was Stalin himself who opposed such a thing and Trotsky who originally supported it.

True, Stalin did not support the “people’s army” concept and obviously took a radically different approach than Hoxha to defense. Stalin brought back military ranks, professional officers and a conventionally organized military.... :roll:

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:23 pm**

Novus America wrote:
Kubra wrote:Also hoo boy there's some real mental gymnastics involved with having a "people's army" as an "anti-revisionist" position, seeing as it was Stalin himself who opposed such a thing and Trotsky who originally supported it.

True, Stalin did not support the “people’s army” concept and obviously took a radically different approach than Hoxha to defense. Stalin brought back military ranks, professional officers and a conventionally organized military....

tbf Trotsky kind of did, but he did say it was largely a wartime thing and opposed the stuff after the civil war.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:27 pm**

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:>when you were basically the founder and commander of the Red Army but some mustachioed man takes it over and tries to kill you.

Stalin won the power struggle because he was intelligent and pragmatic. Do I like Stalin? Not at all. But he's was effective at politicking in a way that a lot of the other Bolsheviks really weren't.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:29 pm**

The New California Republic wrote:
West Leas Oros 2 wrote:>when you were basically the founder and commander of the Red Army but some mustachioed man takes it over and tries to kill you.

This is bar none the most cursed image I've ever seen on NSG.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:30 pm**

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:
Cisairse wrote:
I pretty much left the ancom community once I realized (1) how little difference there was between ancom ideas of praxis and pre-Marxist utopian socialists (2) how most ancoms have basically no care for how to reach their goals and at least say that they'd be okay with dying/going to prison for their cause even if the cause wasn't eventually reached.

I determined that way too many ancoms/ansynds/left anarchists in general are either larpers who don't realize they're larpers or champagne socialists who feel that the more "radical" their views are the more "cred" they get from the proletariat they dream of being a part of.

I've mostly settled with being a demsoc Wobblyist because unlike basically everyone else on the far-left, the Wobblies actually get shit done and have a reasonable expectation of success in the event they suddenly see a huge group of people ideologically allied with them.

Ancoms... hoo boy... between them and tankies, they make up most of the vitriolic idiocy I’m talking about.

Yeah. I checked out when I saw a lot of them unironically saying that stealing video games from Wal-Mart is praxis.

I'm convinced that most ancoms, and most tankies for that matter, are too young to vote.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:32 pm**

Kubra wrote:
Novus America wrote:
True, Stalin did not support the “people’s army” concept and obviously took a radically different approach than Hoxha to defense. Stalin brought back military ranks, professional officers and a conventionally organized military....
tbf Trotsky kind of did, but he did say it was largely a wartime thing and opposed the stuff after the civil war.

True, Trotsky did de facto during the civil war (largely because a “people’s army” is only capable of unconventional warfare and some localized defense, but poor in conventional warfare and maneuver warfare.

But Stalin made it official getting rid of all pretense by WWII.
Stalin too despite his persecution of the church early on also came to use it as a thing to rally people behind.

TFW Stalin is obviously the revisionist :rofl:

NationStates

LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels