Marxism-Leninism and "Authoritarian" Socialism is good

[Communal concils]

Ever since the French Revolution, there had been Socialism. Though, Socialism has rarely been put into practice in the form of "Libertarianism" or Liberalism. The most widely practice form of socialism are variants that seek complete centralization of the economy and aggressive policies that try to improve the human condition. In Russia, it lead to a massive industrialize superpower. In China, it made a pragmatic nation. In Cuba, there is atleast a better condition than Haiti. These nations had been through a non-utopian socialism, and they mostly had regimes that gave people certain rights. Unlike the privilege ideologues of "Libertarian" and "utopian" Socialist , the Authoritarian ones had the will to make action. Literacy improve in many, unemployment was low, women had job opportunities, and there was a massive focus on industrialization and infrastructure.

Opponent's "Arguments":
1:"That's not real Socialism". Troskyites, Social Democrats, "Left" communist , "Orthodox" Marxist and Anarchist complain about these regimes. To counter "Stalinism", they simply say it's not real socialism. They also go further to call it State "Capitalism". The state had a monopoly on the economy, but there was extreme limitations of the Market. There was no profit motive, and the capitalist were being killed. The Soviet Style command Economy is differant from the Liberal Democracies of the west, and it's intellectually lazy to call a massive nation of public ownership " Not real socialism".

2. "It Killed so much people". Every system has killed people. If one was to combine every war, every capital punishment, every economic mistake and every society under a system, then it makes sense. However, it's stupid to say that every society under a certain ideology killed 300 Million people each.

3." Anti-freedom". Even a few fascist call such a ideology anti-freedom. However, the people that use the argument of "undemocratic and totalitarian" assume that their ideologies won't do the same. Liberalism has force people to live under it, the monarchs felt like a oppress minority.Anarchist Catalonia didn't help the catholic priest(infact it killed them). So, the argument doesn't work when the opponent has a vague and simplistic understanding of "Freedom".

4." You need a Mix of both". The centrist has the urge to denounce everything as extreme. Centrism pretends that it's the most "Rational" thing around. Mix economies are already a thing, and these economies still face the issues of poverty, unemployment and Market crashes.

[Telconi]

It's not tho.

[Communal concils]

It's not tho.

How so, I'll like an explanation.

[Telconi]

It's not tho.

How so, I'll like an explanation.

You covered it quite well in your OP.

[Communal concils]

How so, I'll like an explanation.

You covered it quite well in your OP.

Which argument?

[New Excalibus]

Gotta disagree on the "Centrist" bit. In any economy there are the problems you mentioned. Any market can crash just the same.
Frankly, your argument is... flawed to say the least.

[Communal concils]

Gotta disagree on the "Centrist" bit. In any economy there are the problems you mentioned. Any market can crash just the same.
Frankly, your argument is... flawed to say the least.

However, That's a major trait of Capitalism. There is enough autonomy for markets in a mix economy to lead to such crashes. I am a non-Market Socialist, and therefor want to limit the market as much as possible.

[Telconi]

You covered it quite well in your OP.

Which argument?

Number three mostly, I mean, killing folks is also bad though.

[The New California Republic]

Ever since the French Revolution, there had been Socialism.

Wrong. Socialist ideas have existed since antiquity.

In China, it made a pragmatic nation.

I don't think you know what pragmatism means.

In Cuba, there is atleast a better condition than Haiti.

That...really isn't saying a great deal...

The Soviet Style command Economy is differant from the Liberal Democracies of the west, and it's intellectually lazy to call a massive nation of public ownership " Not real socialism".

It's also intellectually lazy to call it socialism.

2. "It Killed so much people". Every system has killed people.

Show me where liberal democracy has killed its own citizens en masse.

[Erythrean Thebes]

Ever since the French Revolution, there had been Socialism. Though, Socialism has rarely been put into practice in the form of "Libertarianism" or Liberalism. The most widely practice form of socialism are variants that seek complete centralization of the economy and aggressive policies that try to improve the human condition. In Russia, it lead to a massive industrialize superpower. In China, it made a pragmatic nation. In Cuba, there is atleast a better condition than Haiti. These nations had been through a non-utopian socialism, and they mostly had regimes that gave people certain rights. Unlike the privilege ideologues of "Libertarian" and "utopian" Socialist , the Authoritarian ones had the will to make action. Literacy improve in many, unemployment was low, women had job opportunities, and there was a massive focus on industrialization and infrastructure.

True that Socialism accelerated the human development of many countries which adopted it in the 20th Century. The caveats were mostly politically motivated violence against different citizen groups, leading in the best case scenario to a degree of genocide/murder, in worse instances like China doing severe damage to the quality of intellectual thought or cultural heritage. Actually most of the Socialist countries which plummeted economically were hamstrung by the opposition of the United States and like-minded countries.

Opponent's "Arguments":
1:"That's not real Socialism". Troskyites, Social Democrats, "Left" communist , "Orthodox" Marxist and Anarchist complain about these regimes. To counter "Stalinism", they simply say it's not real socialism. They also go further to call it State "Capitalism". The state had a monopoly on the economy, but there was extreme limitations of the Market. There was no profit motive, and the capitalist were being killed. The Soviet Style command Economy is differant from the Liberal Democracies of the west, and it's intellectually lazy to call a massive nation of public ownership " Not real socialism".

Anyway, whether it is or isn't, the shortcoming is the use of political violence

2. "It Killed so much people". Every system has killed people. If one was to combine every war, every capital punishment, every economic mistake and every society under a system, then it makes sense. However, it's stupid to say that every society under a certain ideology killed 300 Million people each.

It's the biggest and number one failure of historical attempts to implement Socialism. It's the number one flaw of historical Socialism

3." Anti-freedom". Even a few fascist call such a ideology anti-freedom. However, the people that use the argument of "undemocratic and totalitarian" assume that their ideologies won't do the same. Liberalism has force people to live under it, the monarchs felt like a oppress minority.Anarchist Catalonia didn't help the catholic priest(infact it killed them). So, the argument doesn't work when the opponent has a vague and simplistic understanding of "Freedom".

In theory, in purely abstract terms, freedom is not as important as what is morally and ethically right. But for practical purposes, freedom is good and better than authoritarianism.

4." You need a Mix of both". The centrist has the urge to denounce everything as extreme. Centrism pretends that it's the most "Rational" thing around. Mix economies are already a thing, and these economies still face the issues of poverty, unemployment and Market crashes.

What we need is solutions applied to political problems independent of any dogma, with standards created and approved of by the people ad hoc for each instance

[Communal concils]

Which argument?

Number three mostly, I mean, killing folks is also bad though.

Well, I don't deny events like the great purge in the USSR. However, I wouldn't act as if there was a peaceful option. In fact, I believe that the avoidance of action would lead to political instability. Infact, the only way for Russia to even accept rights for the oppress was for there to be force on those that reject those policies. The Russian republic of the February Revolution was ineffective, and the Bolsheviks give what they wanted.
"Peace,Land and Bread' was what industrial workers wanted, and no "Libertarian" state could develop Russia so quickly.

[Arcturus Novus]

Stalin was a proper bastard and his “theoretical interpretations” of Marxism were ultimately the reason the USSR failed. Marxism-Leninism is hostile to a true proletarian revolution: it’s harmful to practically every other leftist sect, ir’s harmful to anyone who’s deemed as “deviant” (i.e. LGBT people, drug users, sex workers, etc.), and it’s harmful to fence-sitters and potential allies outside of the immediate left.

[Astoriya]

I think a tin of worms is about to be opened with this thread...

two pence: Marxism-Leninism / authoritarianism ≠ socialism - let's first get that right

[The New California Republic]

Well, I don't deny events like the great purge in the USSR. However, I wouldn't act as if there was a peaceful option.

Stalin could have been prevented from rising to power if Lenin had his way.

"Peace,Land and Bread' was what industrial workers wanted, and no "Libertarian" state could develop Russia so quickly.

Baseless conjecture, nothing more.

[Communal concils]

Ever since the French Revolution, there had been Socialism. Though, Socialism has rarely been put into practice in the form of "Libertarianism" or Liberalism. The most widely practice form of socialism are variants that seek complete centralization of the economy and aggressive policies that try to improve the human condition. In Russia, it lead to a massive industrialize superpower. In China, it made a pragmatic nation. In Cuba, there is atleast a better condition than Haiti. These nations had been through a non-utopian socialism, and they mostly had regimes that gave people certain rights. Unlike the privilege ideologues of "Libertarian" and "utopian" Socialist , the Authoritarian ones had the will to make action. Literacy improve in many, unemployment was low, women had job opportunities, and there was a massive focus on industrialization and infrastructure.

True that Socialism accelerated the human development of many countries which adopted it in the 20th Century. The caveats were mostly politically motivated violence against different citizen groups, leading in the best case scenario to a degree of genocide/murder, in worse instances like China doing severe damage to the quality of intellectual thought or cultural heritage. Actually most of the Socialist countries which plummeted economically were hamstrung by the opposition of the United States and like-minded countries.

Opponent's "Arguments":
1:"That's not real Socialism". Troskyites, Social Democrats, "Left" communist , "Orthodox" Marxist and Anarchist complain about these regimes. To counter "Stalinism", they simply say it's not real socialism. They also go further to call it State "Capitalism". The state had a monopoly on the economy, but there was extreme limitations of the Market. There was no profit motive, and the capitalist were being killed. The Soviet Style command Economy is differant from the Liberal Democracies of the west, and it's intellectually lazy to call a massive nation of public ownership " Not real socialism".

Anyway, whether it is or isn't, the shortcoming is the use of political violence

2. "It Killed so much people". Every system has killed people. If one was to combine every war, every capital punishment, every economic mistake and every society under a system, then it makes sense. However, it's stupid to say that every society under a certain ideology killed 300 Million people each.

It's the biggest and number one failure of historical attempts to implement Socialism. It's the number one flaw of historical Socialism

3." Anti-freedom". Even a few fascist call such a ideology anti-freedom. However, the people that use the argument of "undemocratic and totalitarian" assume that their ideologies won't do the same. Liberalism has force people to live under it, the monarchs felt like a oppress minority.Anarchist Catalonia didn't help the catholic priest(infact it killed them). So, the argument doesn't work when the opponent has a vague and simplistic understanding of "Freedom".

In theory, in purely abstract terms, freedom is not as important as what is morally and ethically right. But for practical purposes, freedom is good and better than authoritarianism.

4." You need a Mix of both". The centrist has the urge to denounce everything as extreme. Centrism pretends that it's the most "Rational" thing around. Mix economies are already a thing, and these economies still face the issues of poverty, unemployment and Market crashes.

What we need is solutions applied to political problems independent of any dogma, with standards created and approved of by the people ad hoc for each instance

1. I think that it was necessary to exterminate old aspects of a society. Honestly, Marxism requires Destruction of Bourgeoisie elements, so these sates were following the ideals of "dictatorship of the proletariat.

2. The only way for such revolutions to happen was through Violence. Reform and pacifism is especially pointless in Third world nations, with reactionary aspects to challenge a new authority. For example, the Country of Eritrea gave women rights. The Only way for them to keep the conservative aspects under control was through force.

3. Authoritarianism does not negate "Freedom". It depends on what kind of freedom. Many of these states gave people shelter, health care and education. Which are freedoms. Libertarianism does not have a monopoly on what freedom is.

4. I Don't hate democracy, constitutions or "Rule of Law". I also believe that universal suffrage should be a thing. So I would describe myself as a type of Democratic Socialist.

[Les Deschamps]

Saying that, "[e]very system has killed people," obfuscates the fact that totalitarian regimes such as Soviet Russia under Stalin MURDERED millions of their own people. Stalin HATED Ukrainians so much that he STARVED millions of them during the Holodomor of 1932-1933. The Holodomor was a deliberate act by Stalin to "punish" Ukraine for wanting independence from the Soviet Union. The Holodomor was part of a greater Soviet Famine that was also engineered by Stalin and his henchmen to force the grain-producing Soviet territories into compliance with Stalin's agricultural policies. These "man-made" famines occurred before the slaughter and devastation of World War II. Let us also not forget the many Soviet citizens who were "disappeared" or forced into the Gulags for alleged "crimes" just because they disagreed with Stalin or his policies. Non-conformity to Stalin's interpretations of Marxist-Leninism was a crime punishable by death.

[The New California Republic]

Authoritarianism does not negate "Freedom". It depends on what kind of freedom. Many of these states gave people shelter, health care and education.

And so do liberal democracies...

I Don't hate democracy, constitutions or "Rule of Law". I also believe that universal suffrage should be a thing. So I would describe myself as a type of Democratic Socialist.

Forgive me if I am more than a bit sceptical, in light of how you have consistently advocated authoritarian policies.

[Teachian]

The only thing any of those authoritarian countries did better than their democratic paths was making gulag memes.

The ability to implement your will with no resistance doesn't make your actions good, simply unquestioned.

[Communal concils]

Stalin was a proper bastard and his “theoretical interpretations” of Marxism were ultimately the reason the USSR failed. Marxism-Leninism is hostile to a true proletarian revolution: it’s harmful to practically every other leftist sect, ir’s harmful to anyone who’s deemed as “deviant” (i.e. LGBT people, drug users, sex workers, etc.), and it’s harmful to fence-sitters and potential allies outside of the immediate left.

1.Khrushchev was the reason why the soviet union was failing. Stalin was being realistic. You can't just create a society of rainbows and free stuff, you must work towards it. Anarcho-Communism has failed everywhere it was tried, due to the rejections of centralizing it's territory. If anything, Sate socialism done a better job than any antifa activist or anarchist.

2.Also, I don't think that Drug users and Prostitution should be a thing.

[Heloin]

Stalin was a proper bastard and his “theoretical interpretations” of Marxism were ultimately the reason the USSR failed. Marxism-Leninism is hostile to a true proletarian revolution: it’s harmful to practically every other leftist sect, ir’s harmful to anyone who’s deemed as “deviant” (i.e. LGBT people, drug users, sex workers, etc.), and it’s harmful to fence-sitters and potential allies outside of the immediate left.

1.Khrushchev was the reason why the soviet union was failing. Stalin was being realistic. You can't just create a society of rainbows and free stuff, you must work towards it. Anarcho-Communism has failed everywhere it was tried, due to the rejections of centralizing it's territory. If anything, Sate socialism done a better job than any antifa activist or anarchist.

2.Also, I don't think that Drug users and Prostitution should be a thing.

The tens of millions killed under Stalin were less for the creation of some pure Marxist utopia, more because he wanted to keep power for Stalin and Stalin alone.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Marxism-Lenism didn't just kill people. They managed to kill more people than Hitler did. Most systems don't even come close, so saying every system does it is a false equivlency.

[The New California Republic]

Khrushchev was the reason why the soviet union was failing.

Evidence?

You can't just create a society of rainbows and free stuff, you must work towards it.

Work =/= sending millions to gulags.

Also, I don't think that Drug users and Prostitution should be a thing.

Or sex.

[Communal concils]

Saying that, "[e]very system has killed people," obfuscates the fact that totalitarian regimes such as Soviet Russia under Stalin MURDERED millions of their own people. Stalin HATED Ukrainians so much that he STARVED millions of them during the Holodomor of 1932-1933. The Holodomor was a deliberate act by Stalin to "punish" Ukraine for wanting independence from the Soviet Union. The Holodomor was part of a greater Soviet Famine that was also engineered by Stalin and his henchmen to force the grain-producing Soviet territories into compliance with Stalin's agricultural policies. These "man-made" famines occurred before the slaughter and devastation of World War II. Let us also not forget the many Soviet citizens who were "disappeared" or forced into the Gulags for alleged "crimes" just because they disagreed with Stalin or his policies. Non-conformity to Stalin's interpretations of Marxist-Leninism was a crime punishable by death.

1. The Holodomor is more like a economic mistake. However, Famines were a common site in Russia before a Russian revolution, the Russian Civil war contributed to the famines.

2. Russia was still a poor nation at the time of stalin gaining power. It was devastated by war, and need a united economic policy. It's only necessary for a regime to consolidate power. So, I don't see the Gulag system as an evil thing. Also , I'm sure that their have been many attempts at making stalin's Brutality seem more disastrous than it really was. I'll say that the majority of deaths are actually cause from the rapid industrialization(which was necessary for the countries birth rates and life expectancy).

[Communal concils]

1.Khrushchev was the reason why the soviet union was failing. Stalin was being realistic. You can't just create a society of rainbows and free stuff, you must work towards it. Anarcho-Communism has failed everywhere it was tried, due to the rejections of centralizing it's territory. If anything, Sate socialism done a better job than any antifa activist or anarchist.

2.Also, I don't think that Drug users and Prostitution should be a thing.

The tens of millions killed under Stalin were less for the creation of some pure Marxist utopia, more because he wanted to keep power for Stalin and Stalin alone.

I find it weird that people can't even come to a conclusion on a meaningful ratio of how many dead. 100 million, 30 million, 1 million. There seems to be no official number. Also, I find no problem with a individual consolidating power. To simply give up such power would lead to a major conflicts.

[Heloin]

Saying that, "[e]very system has killed people," obfuscates the fact that totalitarian regimes such as Soviet Russia under Stalin MURDERED millions of their own people. Stalin HATED Ukrainians so much that he STARVED millions of them during the Holodomor of 1932-1933. The Holodomor was a deliberate act by Stalin to "punish" Ukraine for wanting independence from the Soviet Union. The Holodomor was part of a greater Soviet Famine that was also engineered by Stalin and his henchmen to force the grain-producing Soviet territories into compliance with Stalin's agricultural policies. These "man-made" famines occurred before the slaughter and devastation of World War II. Let us also not forget the many Soviet citizens who were "disappeared" or forced into the Gulags for alleged "crimes" just because they disagreed with Stalin or his policies. Non-conformity to Stalin's interpretations of Marxist-Leninism was a crime punishable by death.

1. The Holodomor is more like a economic mistake. However, Famines were a common site in Russia before a Russian revolution, the Russian Civil war contributed to the famines.

2. Russia was still a poor nation at the time of stalin gaining power. It was devastated by war, and need a united economic policy. It's only necessary for a regime to consolidate power. So, I don't see the Gulag system as an evil thing. Also , I'm sure that their have been many attempts at making stalin's Brutality seem more disastrous than it really was. I'll say that the majority of deaths are actually cause from the rapid industrialization(which was necessary for the countries birth rates and life expectancy).

Good old genocide apologism, how I miss you.