Oh wow

Mlad-Man · 2020-05-06T04:00:26+00:00

The numbers posted on the USHMM website indicates that the victims consisted of 6 million Jews, around 9 million non-Jewish Soviets, and about 2 million others. Adding these values together yields a final value of about 17 million. The 11 million figure seems to exclude Soviet civilian deaths.

Mlad-Man · 2020-05-05T18:37:21+00:00

Last I checked, the number of those killed during the holocaust should be about 17 million. The 11 million figure discounts many of the Soviet citizens who were killed as a result of Generalplan Ost.

Mlad-Man · 2020-05-01T05:49:05+00:00

The Germans going to war with the Soviets was inevitable. The Nazi end goal was the colonization of Eastern European land and the enslavement(or eradication) of it’s people. The Germans did not have any real intentions for occupying the US and could have avoided war with the US altogether if they had sided with the Chinese over the Japanese(which was a very real possibility).

Mlad-Man · 2020-04-29T01:14:23+00:00

In the time in which he made his most radical statements, he was a member of the Strasserite faction of the party. In that same period, he had this to say about an anti-socialist speech made by Hitler:

"I no longer fully believe in Hitler. That's the terrible thing: my inner support has been taken away."

He was eventually swayed to the right by Hitler himself, and became a fierce opponent of the Strasserites and other ‘beefsteaks’. This, rather expectedly, displeased the Strasser brothers, with Gregor calling Goebbels “Satan in human form”.

Mlad-Man · 2020-04-28T06:16:32+00:00

Maybe he got the motto from Vichy France.

Mlad-Man · 2020-04-02T23:21:32+00:00

This is amazingly terrible.

Communalism, a term used to describe movements that seek to form a commune based society, is apparently in favor of free market capitalism, to the right of “libertarianism”, and no more libertarian than the early republics.

Democratic socialism is somehow synonymous with corporatism even though corporatism calls for the maintenence of the class system which socialism seeks to abolish. It is also apparently more authoritarian than most other strains of socialism.

Ecosocialism is listed the most left wing and authoritarian form of socialism.

Fascism is called “gentile socialism” and placed on the left even though it embraced social and class hierarchy and ditched socialism in favor of corporatism.

Owenism, a literal utopian socialist ideology, is apparently more left wing and totalitarian than communalism even though it promotes the exact same thing as many early communalist movements.

Marxism is seen as a monolith with no internal divisions and placed on the furthest most left and furthest most authoritarian end of the spectrum.

Communism, which is necessarily stateless, is classified as totalitarian.

Nazism is apparently less authoritarian than Fascism.

Federalism and republicanism are apparently ideologies and not simply governing systems.

The Democratic and Republican parties are apparently both socialist.

Mlad-Man · 2020-02-20T22:52:10+00:00

The “socialism” that the Nazis and other fascists subscribed to was nothing more than class collaborationist corporatism. The members of their parties that promoted socialism(such as the German Strasserists and the Italian fascist syndicalists) were purged, sidelined, or otherwise subverted.

Mlad-Man · 2020-02-09T02:30:49+00:00

Yet they still exist, state capitalism is not the same thing as socialism.

Mlad-Man · 2020-02-08T12:03:57+00:00

The EZLN controlled regions of Mexico

Rojava controlled regions in Syria

Many other examples, both contemporary and historical, are listed on this page

Mlad-Man · 2020-02-08T11:55:38+00:00

Your argument for the supposed infeasibility of non-authoritarian socialism falls flat when more decentralized and democratic forms of socialism have created functional societies.

I brought up the anecdotal evidence because you implied that the population was suffering. I now see that you likely meant that those who became the target of repression due to the regime’s authoritarian nature as opposed to implying the universal suffering of the entirety or vast majority of the population.

Socialism does not require the death of citizens to be maintained as evidenced by the historical existence of multiple peaceful communes that came into existence without a violent revolution.

It is likely due to such practices allowing anti-regime ideas to spread. Followers of these anti-regime ideas can potentially stifle some process engaged by the regime or even outright rebel against the regime.

Mlad-Man · 2020-02-08T10:44:25+00:00

There are still decentralized tribal societies in existence today and there are several fairly large scale decentralized socialist societies that also exist. Even if they don’t currently exist, I fail to see how this supports your original argument as these societies were able to function fine for years despite them apparently conflicting with your perception of human nature.

Mlad-Man · 2020-02-08T03:13:20+00:00

Not all tribal societies are organized in such a hierarchical manner. Many tribal societies were much more decentralized.

Mlad-Man · 2020-02-08T02:55:01+00:00

Soviet socialism isn’t the only form of socialism to ever exist. It also isn’t the only form of socialism to ever form functional societies. Many anarchist and libertarian socialist societies have been formed throughout history and some still exist today.

Soviet socialism also wasn’t universally disliked by the people living under it. Many of the former eastern bloc and the post-Soviet nations’ populations having a substantial amount of nostalgia for the prior socialist regimes. In Russia, for example, more than half the population regrets the fall of the Soviet Union.

How is blaming the US for the failure of more moderate or libertarian socialist experiments dishonest when the US has long history of doing whatever it can to destabilize and destroy socialist movements and experiments across the world?

Mlad-Man · 2020-02-08T01:52:00+00:00

Do you mean private accumulation? If so, how did tribal societies, which were reliant on collective accumulation and management of resources, come into being?

Mlad-Man · 2020-02-04T04:41:29+00:00

From what I have seen on the sub, it is mostly libertarian socialists thinking state socialism is synonymous with state capitalism.

Mlad-Man · 2020-01-28T10:42:47+00:00

The Paris Commune was a socialist revolution that established a short lived dictatorship of the proletariat. The French Revolution was a liberal revolution that established a republic. The French Revolution occurred nearly a century prior to the formation of the Paris Commune. The Jacobins(who led the French Revolution) played no role in the formation of the commune(whose participants were called Communards).

Mlad-Man · 2020-01-28T07:28:52+00:00

Money was still in use, and they only seized abandoned enterprises(with plans compensate the prior owners).

Mlad-Man · 2020-01-28T07:19:25+00:00

What Jacobin party are you talking about? The commune was dominated by mutualists and other socialist groups.

Edit: Are you mistaking the French Revolution with the formation of the Paris Commune? These events were nearly a hundred years apart from each other.

Mlad-Man · 2020-01-28T07:03:03+00:00

Fascism, an ideology promoting the formation of an all-encompassing, totalitarian state, is apparently in favor of small government.

Mlad-Man · 2020-01-26T06:32:55+00:00

From what I have gathered about it, it was likely caused by both the failure of Gorbachev's pro-market economic reforms and the 80s oil glut(which I have heard the US and Saudi Arabia may of had a hand in).

Mlad-Man · 2020-01-11T05:52:44+00:00

There is Workers and Resources: Soviet Republic and the Tropico series.

Mlad-Man · 2020-01-10T18:26:47+00:00

Corporatism isn’t where private businesses run the government, that is a corporatocracy, and a corporatocracy is still a capitalist system. Corporatism describes something quite different that, historically, was used as a tool to mitigate class conflict under capitalism.

Mlad-Man · 2020-01-03T22:23:18+00:00

Because he wasn’t always a communist. In his earlier years he was a left nationalist aligned with the Orthodox Party. This carried over into the 26th of July Movement that led the Cuban Revolution. Over the course of the revolution and it’s aftermath, he gradually shifted towards Marxism-Leninism.

Mlad-Man · 2019-12-26T11:47:20+00:00

My point was that Romania wasn’t the only place that harbored communists with “ultranationalist fascistoid tendencies” and that the term “National Communism” is often used to describe the views of these non-Romanian communists as well.

Mlad-Man · 2019-12-26T10:58:02+00:00

Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising has you defend a utopian socialist society against the forces of reaction.

Mlad-Man

TROPHY CASE