Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

Well SG’s obviously a Stalinist.

[Gentlefish]

Yeah sure. I bet you're totally not hiding a T-37 under some tarps in your back yard too.

Glad to meet another Anarchist tho. Leaders who don't commit to the will of the people should not lead.

[Zangi]

Yeah sure. I bet you're totally not hiding a T-37 under some tarps in your back yard too.

Glad to meet another Anarchist tho. Leaders who don't commit to the will of the people should not lead.

There is a misunderstanding of who the people are.

[Starver]

It's arguable whether most of the "socialist" countries were/are indeed socialist even in the way the detractors of socialism understand the term, never mind how the term is used by those that actually support it.

The same goes for liberal ("liberal oppression"? That shouldn't really be parsable as a sequitur), and most of the "Democratic Republics of..." are often pretty much the antithesis of what either Democrats or Republicans would identify with, so we're far from any descriptive or prescriptive consistency there too.

[misko27]

So Trump designated Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. This comes after reports they'd do so that surfaced in the last month. Note that they are part of Iran's government! And note that both the Pentagon and the CIA opposed this move (along with their lawyers), which is probably a sign that it's a little controversial, but Pence and Bolton pushed for it.

So here's a question for everyone out there speculating Trump wants a war via his aggressive and inflammatory actions: who does Trump want a war with, exactly? One would think he'd be about to invade Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, all at the same time. Granted Trump is the type who would not see an issue in three wars at once, but on the other hand... what even is Trump's idea? Is it aggression for aggression's sake? Because you know, with Trump, that's something I would buy, if one were to suggest it.

[bloop_bleep]

I never once stated that there were only two choices. To put it short, MSH suggested communism and I said why that's a bad idea.

And when I'm saying "look how that turned out," I'm not referring to how the Soviet Union collapsed. That was in no way guaranteed simply by the fact they were communist; they collapsed from external forces, not internal. I'm referring to the situation formed within the country, with an absolute authoritarian government, abysmal standard of life, and the greatest genocides in history. If that's the case, then whether another country is able to destroy you is irrelevant to how well the system is working.

[Teneb]

There are, however, examples of Communism working pretty well until destroyed by an external force. Same goes for Anarchism.

For Communism/Socialism, I'd like to point out to Salvador Allende's Chile, where the revolution was non-violent and things were going pretty well until Pinochet (backed by CIA) toppled his government.

For Anarchism, the example I'd give was Catalunia, Barcelona specifically, during the Spanish Civil War. Too bad they got crushed with the rest of Republican Spain by Franco.


The thing is that people only pay attention to the Warsaw-pact soviet countries (and Cuba) when talking about non-capitalistic regimes in the last century.

[Telgin]

So here's a question for everyone out there speculating Trump wants a war via his aggressive and inflammatory actions: who does Trump want a war with, exactly? One would think he'd be about to invade Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, all at the same time. Granted Trump is the type who would not see an issue in three wars at once, but on the other hand... what even is Trump's idea? Is it aggression for aggression's sake? Because you know, with Trump, that's something I would buy, if one were to suggest it.

I'm speculating that it's not even Trump's idea so much as something filtering his direction from advisers.  If it is Trump's idea, it's probably because he feels like a show of force would make him look tough, which, right or wrong, he thinks would make people support him more.

[Starver]

Cuba isn't even a bad example of a leftward political system, in many ways. Not perfect, and there's the wave of 'defectors' over to the US (or elsewhere, but mostly we hear about the Cuba-to-Florida escapees), but some of those imperfections seem to be created through US embargoes (or as local repercussions to them) rather than through the actual tyranny of the leadership.

The health system is still notably better than that the average US citizen can get, in extremis, even shorn of its soviet-era oversees subsidising/development and the dislocation from the increasingly hi-tech 'free market' systems.

But Communist! So bad, apparently.

[SalmonGod]

MSH suggested communism

Pls quote where this happened

And when I'm saying "look how that turned out," I'm not referring to how the Soviet Union collapsed. That was in no way guaranteed simply by the fact they were communist; they collapsed from external forces, not internal. I'm referring to the situation formed within the country, with an absolute authoritarian government, abysmal standard of life, and the greatest genocides in history. If that's the case, then whether another country is able to destroy you is irrelevant to how well the system is working.

I know what you meant by it.  My point was that using the Soviet Union's internal behaviors as a wholly representative example isn't intellectually sound when other potential examples were violently destroyed or suppressed. 

Communism is by no means necessary for a violent revolution to turn into a dictatorship.  If you want to prove that the Soviet Union's dictatorship was directly related to its communism, you need other examples that control for other variables strongly correlated with dictatorship.  Yet we were explicitly denied the opportunity to see what a communist nation could be like if it didn't come about by violent revolution, or under the influence of different political figures.

There's also an argument to be had about whether the bad stuff the Soviets did was really worse than what the United States has done, or how circumstances under capitalism continue to develop.  For example, Gulags vs USA's private prisons, which are also a humanitarian nightmare.  But I'm starting my work day, and can't dig into that right now.

Glad to meet another Anarchist tho.

Likewise!

Unless you're an ancap, in which case no hard feelings but ancaps aren't anarchists    Just have to throw that out there, because that's what most other self-described anarchists on the internet are.

[Kagus]

Unless you're an ancap, in which case no hard feelings but ancaps aren't anarchists

Says who? Your pathetic liquid assets?

[bloop_bleep]

Who decides what the regulations are in a capitalist society? Capitalists. Food safety is red tape wasting YOUR tax dollars, lib status = owned as fuck.

Stop trying to compromise between horrible and non-horrible. Just be non-horrible god damn it.

MSH is implying that regulations are useless unless they're total. Total, complete regulation is the definition of communism.

[Gentlefish]

Likewise!

Unless you're an ancap, in which case no hard feelings but ancaps aren't anarchists    Just have to throw that out there, because that's what most other self-described anarchists on the internet are.

ohjeez ancaps. Nah, I found a twitch streamer who's Anarcho-Syndicalist. He's been a good gateway to all of this.

[SalmonGod]

Who decides what the regulations are in a capitalist society? Capitalists. Food safety is red tape wasting YOUR tax dollars, lib status = owned as fuck.

Stop trying to compromise between horrible and non-horrible. Just be non-horrible god damn it.

MSH is implying that regulations are useless unless they're total. Total, complete regulation is the definition of communism.

I still don't see where he said or implied this.  I'm pretty sure this whole time you've been primarily inspired by this post.

Who decides what the regulations are in a capitalist society? Capitalists. Food safety is red tape wasting YOUR tax dollars, lib status = owned as fuck.

Stop trying to compromise between horrible and non-horrible. Just be non-horrible god damn it.

Pointing out that in a capitalist society, regulations are designed by capitalists is not saying that the problem is in the totality of regulation.  It's saying that the problem is the effect that capitalism has on regulation.

Imploring you to stop compromising between horrible and non-horrible isn't saying that non-horrible = communism.  He's plainly implying that horrible is capitalism, but he never defined some ideological opposite to capitalism.  Non-horrible in his framing just means Not Capitalist.

The only way I see it being interpreted the way you did is through an absolute capitalist/communist dichotomy. 

Likewise!

Unless you're an ancap, in which case no hard feelings but ancaps aren't anarchists    Just have to throw that out there, because that's what most other self-described anarchists on the internet are.

ohjeez ancaps. Nah, I found a twitch streamer who's Anarcho-Syndicalist. He's been a good gateway to all of this.

Nice!  Which streamer?  I'd be interested in checking them out, and probably promoting them.

[Teneb]

Glad to meet another Anarchist tho.

Likewise!

Unless you're an ancap, in which case no hard feelings but ancaps aren't anarchists    Just have to throw that out there, because that's what most other self-described anarchists on the internet are.

Likewise²!

Do you identify with any of the established schools of thought?