Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[Sanctissima]

I... can't really disagree since I'm both Canadian and nationalist as all hell, but at least from the American perspective, I can't rightly condemn a nation for seeing what appears to be low-hanging fruit and attempting to snatch it, only to get mauled by a passive-aggressive beaver.

As for supposed Republican passivity prior to the 70's, remind me which party was running the show when these events happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_Panama_from_Colombia

Nevermind the events of the American Civil War or the handling of the Cold War during Eisenhower's presidency.

I don't really see how the party could rightly be considered pacifistic pre-1970's.

Fortunaty I never said they were pacifists.

No doubt Roosevelt was a very abnormal Republican, which is why he broke with the party.

You said they were anti-imperialist, when clearly they were nothing of the sort.

More "anti-European imperialist, pro-American imperialism" than anything.

As for Teddy, he broke with the Republican Party because it was straying from progressivism, and he had a bit of a grudge with Taft, not because of imperialism, foreign intervention or anything of the sort.

[The Parkus Empire]

You think the Jacksonians were the party of peace?

Considering how broad your definition of 'imperialism' is.

In this context it means actually annexing land. I use it often in the broader sense to mean using force or threat to establish political or economic hegemony.

[Sanctissima]

A maple leaf, the most glorious of all the leaves.

And at any rate, we make up for the lackluster patriotic symbolism with our wildlife:

Sort of...

In terms of your political orientation, I figure it's your economic beliefs that more or less peg you liberal rather than moderately conservative. At any rate, liberals historically have tended to be fairly patriotic, even nationalist. It's just the modern socialized crap that's neutered the entire ideology.

Yes shame that.
If not for the damn Red Scare we might have a decent Social Market Economy.

To be honest you should have adopted a modified form of French dirigisme, albeit without the indicative planning model that De Gaulle tried to force down France's throat; opting moreso for a less regulatory market model.

They didn't call it the "Thirty Glorious Years" for nothing.

[The Parkus Empire]

Fortunaty I never said they were pacifists.

No doubt Roosevelt was a very abnormal Republican, which is why he broke with the party.

You said they were anti-imperialist, when clearly they were nothing of the sort.

More "anti-European imperialist, pro-American imperialism" than anything.

As for Teddy, he broke with the Republican Party because it was straying from progressivism, and he had a bit of a grudge with Taft, not because of imperialism, foreign intervention or anything of the sort.

The United States Navy armoured cruiser Maine had mysteriously sunk in Havana Harbor; political pressures from the Democratic Party pushed the administration of Republican President William McKinley into a war that he had wished to avoid.

[Estonian Republic of Uzumakistan]

You said they were anti-imperialist, when clearly they were nothing of the sort.

More "anti-European imperialist, pro-American imperialism" than anything.

As for Teddy, he broke with the Republican Party because it was straying from progressivism, and he had a bit of a grudge with Taft, not because of imperialism, foreign intervention or anything of the sort.

The United States Navy armoured cruiser Maine had mysteriously sunk in Havana Harbor; political pressures from the Democratic Party pushed the administration of Republican President William McKinley into a war that he had wished to avoid.

Are you trying to be Sarcastic?

[Genivaria]

Not imperialism just not opposed to intervention.
If you want to use those terms synonymously then we're of course going to differ.
And besides if the big names behind neo-liberalism are Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Alan Greenspan then it is a serious stretch to try and put me under that label.

Where do you differ on them besides economics?

Ugh your gonna make me look them up aren't you?

Thatcherism represented a systematic, decisive rejection and reversal of the post-war consensus, whereby the major political parties largely agreed on the central themes of Keynesianism, the welfare state, nationalised industry, and close regulation of the economy.

Her political philosophy and economic policies emphasised deregulation (particularly of the financial sector), flexible labour markets, the privatisation of state-owned companies, and reducing the power and influence of trade unions.

Uh well for Thatcher that seems to kind of be her Shtick.
For Reagan I don't believe that he has the right to shut down protests or strikes, nor do I support capital punishment or 'state's rights'.
And I certainly don't support his contributions to the Red Scare.

[Sanctissima]

You said they were anti-imperialist, when clearly they were nothing of the sort.

More "anti-European imperialist, pro-American imperialism" than anything.

As for Teddy, he broke with the Republican Party because it was straying from progressivism, and he had a bit of a grudge with Taft, not because of imperialism, foreign intervention or anything of the sort.

The United States Navy armoured cruiser Maine had mysteriously sunk in Havana Harbor; political pressures from the Democratic Party pushed the administration of Republican President William McKinley into a war that he had wished to avoid.

Yes, "mysteriously".

Funny how convenient casus bellis just magically pop up every now and then.

[Genivaria]

Considering how broad your definition of 'imperialism' is.

In this context it means actually annexing land. I use it often in the broader sense to mean using force or threat to establish political or economic hegemony.

Then you mean expansionism which is different.

[The Parkus Empire]

The United States Navy armoured cruiser Maine had mysteriously sunk in Havana Harbor; political pressures from the Democratic Party pushed the administration of Republican President William McKinley into a war that he had wished to avoid.

Are you trying to be Sarcastic?

No, I am quoting the article he linked

[United Muscovite Nations]

Where do you differ on them besides economics?

Ugh your gonna make me look them up aren't you?

Thatcherism represented a systematic, decisive rejection and reversal of the post-war consensus, whereby the major political parties largely agreed on the central themes of Keynesianism, the welfare state, nationalised industry, and close regulation of the economy.

Her political philosophy and economic policies emphasised deregulation (particularly of the financial sector), flexible labour markets, the privatisation of state-owned companies, and reducing the power and influence of trade unions.

Uh well for Thatcher that seems to kind of be her Shtick.
For Reagan I don't believe that he has the right to shut down protests or strikes, nor do I support capital punishment or 'state's rights'.
And I certainly don't support his contributions to the Red Scare.

Then, it is true you aren't a neoliberal, but you have strong influences from Neoliberal and Neocon ideas on foreign policy.

[The Parkus Empire]

In this context it means actually annexing land. I use it often in the broader sense to mean using force or threat to establish political or economic hegemony.

Then you mean expansionism which is different.

Not for federations.

[Genivaria]

Ugh your gonna make me look them up aren't you?


Uh well for Thatcher that seems to kind of be her Shtick.
For Reagan I don't believe that he has the right to shut down protests or strikes, nor do I support capital punishment or 'state's rights'.
And I certainly don't support his contributions to the Red Scare.

Then, it is true you aren't a neoliberal, but you have strong influences from Neoliberal and Neocon ideas on foreign policy.

I'm okay with being influenced a little from other fields, the proponent of the idea does not automatically make the idea bad.

[The Parkus Empire]

Ugh your gonna make me look them up aren't you?


Uh well for Thatcher that seems to kind of be her Shtick.
For Reagan I don't believe that he has the right to shut down protests or strikes, nor do I support capital punishment or 'state's rights'.
And I certainly don't support his contributions to the Red Scare.

Then, it is true you aren't a neoliberal, but you have strong influences from Neoliberal and Neocon ideas on foreign policy.

More Wilsonian

[Genivaria]

Then, it is true you aren't a neoliberal, but you have strong influences from Neoliberal and Neocon ideas on foreign policy.

More Wilsonian

I'll take that as a compliment.

Anyway BRB ya'll I'm gonna run down the street and grab a pizza.
Mmmmm.

[Al Hashka]

[The Parkus Empire]

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

He is an evil dictator, but no, we shouldn't. The rebels would be worse

[United Muscovite Nations]

https://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/brou ... /bloc.html

Thoughts?

[The Parkus Empire]

https://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/broue/1980/01/bloc.html

Thoughts?

The only serious argument against Stalin is petty beourgeois morality, as Althusser showed.

[Al Hashka]

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

He is an evil dictator.

[United Muscovite Nations]

https://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/broue/1980/01/bloc.html

Thoughts?

The only serious argument against Stalin is petty beourgeois morality, as Althusser showed.

I tend to agree that only moral arguments are really good against Stalin. If I were still an atheist, I have to imagine I'd still be a Marxist-Leninist. Stalin's measures were extreme, but he accomplished probably the most that any socialist revolutionary ever accomplished, in terms of having created an entire bloc of states in opposition to bourgeois capitalism and liberal democracy. He was also an extremely capable statesman, and, had his foreign policy approach remained, it's hard to imagine that the Soviets would have lost the Cold War.

[The Parkus Empire]

The only serious argument against Stalin is petty beourgeois morality, as Althusser showed.

I tend to agree that only moral arguments are really good against Stalin. If I were still an atheist, I have to imagine I'd still be a Marxist-Leninist. Stalin's measures were extreme, but he accomplished probably the most that any socialist revolutionary ever accomplished, in terms of having created an entire bloc of states in opposition to bourgeois capitalism and liberal democracy. He was also an extremely capable statesman, and, had his foreign policy approach remained, it's hard to imagine that the Soviets would have lost the Cold War.

Stalin killed a lot of innocent people, but under the extremely precarius situation, "better safe than sorry" and "preventative death" were entirely pragmatic. It wasn't crazy or psychotic.

[Sanctissima]

The only serious argument against Stalin is petty beourgeois morality, as Althusser showed.

I tend to agree that only moral arguments are really good against Stalin. If I were still an atheist, I have to imagine I'd still be a Marxist-Leninist. Stalin's measures were extreme, but he accomplished probably the most that any socialist revolutionary ever accomplished, in terms of having created an entire bloc of states in opposition to bourgeois capitalism and liberal democracy. He was also an extremely capable statesman, and, had his foreign policy approach remained, it's hard to imagine that the Soviets would have lost the Cold War.

To be honest, even if we view him purely as a statesman with no moral strings attached, he had a pretty mixed record.

Especially in his early years after seizing power, he more or less starved 10 million people to death before he figured out how agriculture works.

Let alone his hamstringing of the military that ultimately led to the Red Army getting its ass kicked by little Finland, of all countries. Or the major successes the Nazis had in Operation Barbarossa.

He was quite the resounding failure of a statesman in several regards.

[The Parkus Empire]

I tend to agree that only moral arguments are really good against Stalin. If I were still an atheist, I have to imagine I'd still be a Marxist-Leninist. Stalin's measures were extreme, but he accomplished probably the most that any socialist revolutionary ever accomplished, in terms of having created an entire bloc of states in opposition to bourgeois capitalism and liberal democracy. He was also an extremely capable statesman, and, had his foreign policy approach remained, it's hard to imagine that the Soviets would have lost the Cold War.

To be honest, even if we view him purely as a statesman with no moral strings attached, he had a pretty mixed record.

Especially in his early years after seizing power, he more or less starved 10 million people to death before he figured out how agriculture works.

Let alone his hamstringing of the military that ultimately led to the Red Army getting its ass kicked by little Finland, of all countries. Or the major successes the Nazis had in Operation Barbarossa.

He was quite the resounding failure of a statesman in several regards.

Killing off exceptional officers can be pragmatic. Look at all Rome went through. And the French Revolution might have been preserved if Napoleon were murdered.

[Genivaria]

I tend to agree that only moral arguments are really good against Stalin. If I were still an atheist, I have to imagine I'd still be a Marxist-Leninist. Stalin's measures were extreme, but he accomplished probably the most that any socialist revolutionary ever accomplished, in terms of having created an entire bloc of states in opposition to bourgeois capitalism and liberal democracy. He was also an extremely capable statesman, and, had his foreign policy approach remained, it's hard to imagine that the Soviets would have lost the Cold War.

To be honest, even if we view him purely as a statesman with no moral strings attached, he had a pretty mixed record.

Especially in his early years after seizing power, he more or less starved 10 million people to death before he figured out how agriculture works.

Let alone his hamstringing of the military that ultimately led to the Red Army getting its ass kicked by little Finland, of all countries. Or the major successes the Nazis had in Operation Barbarossa.

He was quite the resounding failure of a statesman in several regards.

The Bolsheviks as a whole doomed Russia, the October Revolution was a tragedy and was a betrayal against all of Russia.

[Genivaria]

The only serious argument against Stalin is petty beourgeois morality, as Althusser showed.

I tend to agree that only moral arguments are really good against Stalin. If I were still an atheist, I have to imagine I'd still be a Marxist-Leninist. Stalin's measures were extreme, but he accomplished probably the most that any socialist revolutionary ever accomplished, in terms of having created an entire bloc of states in opposition to bourgeois capitalism and liberal democracy. He was also an extremely capable statesman, and, had his foreign policy approach remained, it's hard to imagine that the Soviets would have lost the Cold War.

Being a Christian doesn't stop many Russians from lauding Stalin, and being atheist doesn't prevent many from condemning him as not just as a mass-murdering psychopath who practically helped the Germans invade his country after wrecking it.