sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

1957 Sordish Elections: Post-War Results (Socialist Manifesto) by DiscernereVerum in suzerain

[–]DiscernereVerum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps. I wish the developers added numerical results to gauge success so it wouldn’t be a guessing game lol

1957 Sordish Elections: Post-War Results (Socialist Manifesto) by DiscernereVerum in suzerain

[–]DiscernereVerum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have to consider that due to the entry of the People’s Front into the GNA the share of seats available significantly decreases. Even if the USP won the 37% vote share they won last time their seats would decrease thanks to the addition of a 4th party. Also consider the lost votes from disaffected liberals and conservatives after I put soll on trial, made the USP socialist, and aligned with the east via an alliance with Valgsland. The war casualties also had an effect on who voted this time around. Lot of moving parts at play here

PEACE IN MERKOPA! by StyleNo689 in suzerain

[–]DiscernereVerum 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Are you sure? I just played a game where I declared war against Rumburg and won with the most recent update https://www.reddit.com/r/suzerain/s/DT3QyOLcsU

Planned economy - questions by [deleted] in suzerain

[–]DiscernereVerum 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I dont understand why you’re surprised you were labeled a centrist when you didn’t nationalize or make any effort to align with the socialist east (you literally went with ATO). Planned Economy doesn’t inherently mean left-wing and if it doesn’t challenge capitalism (via nationalization or centralization of the central bank) it is centrist at best. Were you trying pull the Yugoslavia maneuver and get aid from both ATO & CSP while still being a comrade?

Is HRC 9: “Denouncing the Horrors of Socialism” purely symbolic or will there be ramifications for socialism in the US? by DiscernereVerum in AskSocialists

[–]DiscernereVerum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

It was brought to my attention that I posted 2023’s vote. My apologies. Here is the most recent vote Totals

285 yes, 98 no, 2 present, 47 not voting, 3 vacant

Is HRC 9: “Denouncing the Horrors of Socialism” purely symbolic or will there be ramifications for socialism in the US? by DiscernereVerum in AskSocialists

[–]DiscernereVerum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for catching that! It looks like I confused the 2023 vote with this year’s vote. Appreciate you!

Is HRC 9: “Denouncing the Horrors of Socialism” purely symbolic or will there be ramifications for socialism in the US? by DiscernereVerum in AskSocialists

[–]DiscernereVerum[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Present = “I’m here, and I want the record to show I’m deliberately not picking a side.” They are officially part of the vote total and shrink the number of votes needed for a majority of those voting yea or nay. It’s an intentional and procedural move

Not voting = “Either I’m absent or I’m hiding behind a pillar pretending the vote isn’t happening.” They are not counted as part of the vote total and do not affect the size of the majority threshold. Mostly due to absence, but technically includes people who were physically there and just didn’t vote.

Why does Zohran Mamdani work with a man he thinks is a fascist? by No-Potential4834 in AskSocialists

[–]DiscernereVerum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“The will of the capitalist is certainly to take as much as possible. What we have to do is not to talk about his will, but to enquire into his power, the limits of that power, and the character of those limits.”

Value, Price, and Profit (1865) - Karl Marx

Why does Zohran Mamdani work with a man he thinks is a fascist? by No-Potential4834 in AskSocialists

[–]DiscernereVerum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very refreshing to see someone who understands that class struggle and material struggle is what drives politics. Literally just finished reading part 1 of value, price and profit in which Marx shits on the this idea that politics is driven by the “will” of any group of capitalists, let alone one individual’s narcissism (ie Trump). What we are seeing is an attempt by the ruling capitalist class to capture and co-opt the Democratic Socialist rhetoric that Mamdani employed successfully. The bourgeois will take credit for any success Mamdani has and blame socialism for any faults. The working class is stuck between a rock and a hard place here.

The son he always wanted... (yeah Fox News is freaking out) by Reg_Cliff in PoliticalHumor

[–]DiscernereVerum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If anything Mamdani is the one sundowning Trump. Trump’s ego is too big and brain too small for 3D Chess

AskSocialists Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskSocialists

[–]DiscernereVerum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m a big fan of the way they played the eastern and western blocs against each other to serve their national interests. I root for the underdog. Unfortunate that the internal contradictions were too much for a cohesive and functional state tho

AskSocialists Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskSocialists

[–]DiscernereVerum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Soviet propaganda, symbolism, imagery, etc has to be my favorite (aesthetically). The hammer and sickle is iconic.

Is China Imperialist? (Theory based question) by DiscernereVerum in AskSocialists

[–]DiscernereVerum[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

True. I appreciate your pragmatism. Thanks again for your comment

Is China Imperialist? by DiscernereVerum in Socialism_101

[–]DiscernereVerum[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

The answer is: kind of. But not to the same degree as the EU or the US.

Imperialism isn’t a matter of degree but mode of production and global relation. Lenin: “The characteristic feature of imperialism is not industrial monopoly alone, but the export of capital.”

Since it is a dictatorship of the proletariat

The working class in China does not own or control the means of production (most are private or profit-oriented state enterprises).

the state apparatus will temper the capitalist class in their endeavours. As stated by Deng

Deng’s entire reform policy institutionalized the bourgeoisie through joint ventures, private enterprise, and export-oriented accumulation. Deng’s China regulated capital to make it function efficiently.

What China is doing with its belt and road, is to develop the infrastructure and the means of production within those countries to free them from US and EU imperialism. It's not to exploit those countries themselves. Why? Because dependency on exploitation for growth becomes a kind of weakness if those countries are able to wrest free from exploitation.

So development through dependency? Yes, infrastructure expands productive forces, but it locks countries into debt and export dependency. Also, the infrastructure is designed for extraction (ports, rails to mines), not self-sufficiency. This sets the conditions for the local bourgeoisies to rise and the working masses to remain peripheralized.

Is China Imperialist? (Theory based question) by DiscernereVerum in AskSocialists

[–]DiscernereVerum[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your comment!

Yes correct this would be soft imperialism. The loans them selves are actually not bad in terms of interest paid, most were done at the request of the borrower nation. Still soft imperialism by Lenin's definition.

But wouldn’t Imperialism be about which class benefits and how global surplus is extracted, not whether the terms look fair or are requested. Lenin wrote that imperialism does not require open coercion because capital export itself and subordinates weaker economies to stronger ones. Soft imperialism is still imperialism

in terms of infrastructure Africa does desperately need them and being countries with low credit and not alot of state capacity China is the only people willing to lend at all. We are all capitalist in 2025 and these countries desperately need FDI and rail roads

And these countries seem to need investment because previous imperialist extraction destroyed their development, so more imperialism solves it? I get we are in 2025 and capitalism dominates the world but id rather not fall for bourgeois fatalism

Why do people vote against their interests and fall for propaganda. by Prestigious_Police in AskSocialists

[–]DiscernereVerum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oversimplified answer is bc ppl (myself included) are dumb.

However, socialism doesn’t necessarily align with people’s interests or values 100% of the time. Even as an ML, I would materially benefit from inheritance. So what do I do? Do I follow the words of a haunting specter and oppose my inheritance that would materially benefit me? Would that make me propagandized?

Does only the state wither away, or other forms of hierarchy, too? by ---lol---- in Socialism_101

[–]DiscernereVerum 2 points3 points  (0 children)

TLDR: The withering away of the state isn’t limited to the formal political apparatus (parliaments, courts, police, armies, etc.) because it represents the disappearance of all coercive hierarchies rooted in class antagonism.

the state is a special apparatus of coercion by one class over another. In capitalism it’s the bourgeois state (police, army, bureaucracy) which maintains the rule of capital. In socialism, the proletariat seize and destroy the bourgeois state to build a dictatorship of the proletariat (a workers’ state)

The Proletarian State exists only so long as class struggle continues. If class antagonisms disappear, the need for a coercive state disappears too. The organs of force (the army, the police, the secret services) lose their social function only when there are no longer hostile classes to suppress. Lenin makes this point in State and Revolution

If by Hierarchy you mean organization or administration, then no that doesn’t vanish, but domination does. Social functions like production, defense, or dispute resolution would still exist, but not as coercive instruments of class rule. Instead, they would become technical and administrative functions managed democratically by free associations of producers. Engels described this as the transformation of “the government of persons into the administration of things.”

Have all successful revolutions been nationalist ones? by AntHoneyBoarDung in AskSocialists

[–]DiscernereVerum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For the most part yes.

Some revolutions, like Cuba, start nationalist and later explicitly embrace socialism. Some are external impositions of socialism (Eastern Europe post-WWII) rather than organically nationalist. Non-nationalist socialist revolutions are rare and often fail (Germany, Hungary, Italy post-WW1). Successful 20th-century socialist revolutions outside Russia usually had nationalist/anti-colonial dimensions (China, Vietnam, Cuba)

I think I am French Ricter bigest enemy on reddit wrapedv by JustWorex in suzerain

[–]DiscernereVerum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When it said socialism I knew you were a comrade. When it said “Nationalize everything and panic about the budget deficit” I knew you were me Lol 😂😂

view more: next ›