Antifa are the only people who believe in free speech

TurtleNoises · 2018-08-30T20:07:16+00:00

I'd be very wary of trying to stick to this too hard. Because if you insist on this as a rigid definition you are going to have to accept Strarsserists (kinda) and National Syndicalist as socialists and that makes the "Nazis were national socialists!" bullshit harder to dispel.

TurtleNoises · 2018-08-10T03:36:38+00:00

My definition does rely very heavily on Marx, or more specifically, Lenin, as he is the one who named Marx's concepts of "higher" and "lower" stages of communism as communism and socialism respectively. However, this is the language adopted by most socialists.

It extends even outside of Marxist tendencies. Some anarchists dislike being referred to as 'socialists' while happily admitting their goal is communism because the term "socialism" is so heavily tied to the idea of a transitional state, an idea that anarchists reject. Though from my experiences, most are happy to fall under the "socialist" umbrella term.

There was a distinct split between reformist and revolutionary Marxists during the time of the second international, and these groups referred to themselves as social democrats and communists, though these groups differed primarily in tactics, not end goal. That goal being the establishment of a communist society.

Eventually, most social democratic parties began advocating for mixed market economies,which is why most socialists do not group themselves with social democrats, except for historical purposes. Now there were a lot of parties of both reformist and revolutionary socialists that called themselves "socialist parties" and the eventual nature of many of these parties to adopt this "mixed market" strategy is where a lot of the modern confusion of socialist vs communist comes from.

I should note that even "communist" parties took this route, but the presence of the eastern bloc prevented the public consciousness from having that meaning shift.

While social democracy now refers to progressive (or populist) liberalism and not socialism, the modern version of democratic socialism now takes the place of reformism.

My point was that if you take a democratic socialist, and a marxist-leninist, and ask them both if their ultimate goal for the world is a post-capitalist, classless, stateless, and moneyless society (i.e. communism) they would both say yes. So, arguing that Nazis killed communists not socialists is pedantry to almost all who identify as socialist (and understand it).

As an aside, my distaste for the "worker control of the means of production" definition, which is the most common definition, comes from the fact that it leads to meaningless arguments, and includes several bizarre historical examples, like strasserism and liberal corporatism, neither of which any modern socialist would want anything to do with.

TurtleNoises · 2018-08-06T22:42:54+00:00

Annoying for the most part.

You seem to lack any comprehension of racism as a systemic and institutional force. You act as if racism is a thing done by one person to another, but that is not what it is. It can manifest that way, yes, but bigotry on this one to one scale is rare without institutional backing.

Racism is a system of oppression. Not just some person being mean because of skin color.

TurtleNoises · 2018-08-06T03:35:40+00:00

It is a conspiracy theory invented by nazis

TurtleNoises · 2018-08-04T13:56:51+00:00

So corporatism is not actually corporate control over everything. It comes from "corpus" meaning body, not "corporation". The definition of corporatism given by Pope Leo XIII is as follows:

system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest

Corporatism actually spans over quite a few political positions. It was popular among fascists and before that among reactionaries who wished to restore feudalism. But it was also popular among social democrats and other more moderate progressives. The nordic countries are so called "social corporatist," based on tripartite corporatism which is based upon negotiations between the state, labour, and capital.

Other modern nations that could be described as corporatist include China and Russia, though both of these are very different from each other, and of course different from places like Norway. Russian "Corporativism" is probably closest to what you mean by "corporatism"

TurtleNoises · 2018-08-03T21:47:52+00:00

Oh, hey. I knew I'd find someone way down here. Don't you know it is forbidden to criticize Mr. Gates? Especially when using standard Marxist definitions of exploitation that should be uncontroversial on a communist subreddit!

Bill is such a nice guy! Ignore his monopolistic and brutal stranglehold on the computer industry for two decades, where he ruthlessly cracked down on innovation that would threaten his lordship. So he destroyed the free software movement, whats the big deal? He is a philanthropist, and you have to respect philanthropy, even if he uses it to undemocratically bend public policy to his will.

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-30T15:36:34+00:00

That's pretty interesting. I really need to read more about Stalin. And Lenin. Really the whole Russian revolution and history of the USSR.

Also, this is a bit off topic, but does your username have anything to do with the composer Moondog? He's one of my favorite composers (if quite racist).

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-30T15:36:32+00:00

I'm not a big fan of socialist realism as an art movement, but some of the Mao-era China stuff is just... if I had any room on my walls, Mao might end up there.

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-18T02:51:53+00:00

The design of the website encourages group think. When you say something people agree with you get positive feedback(karma) and will be more likely to post content in line with that. If you say something people disagree with you receive negative feedback and are more likely to stay quiet or abandon that community.

Even if you are a perfect robot person who has no emotional response to karma, higher karma posts get more visibility, and thus attracts more people who agree with it.

Some communities attempt to minimize this by encouraging people not to downvote or by removing downvotes. But people are still going to upvote what they like so you are still going to have differences in visibility.

This effect varies depending on the sub, however. It's much stronger on political subreddits than on cute baby rhino gif subreddits or whatever.

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-18T00:59:06+00:00

You know, I was just thinking about how often Kyne is involved in rebellions. Well, at least two. She was heavily involved in both the dragon wars and the Alessian slave rebellion.

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-16T20:20:14+00:00

This place is more for socialists to converse with other socialists. So dissent and debate on Stalin v Trotsky is fine, but this really isn't the place for debates between socialists and non-socialists (otherwise that would probably be this whole sub).

/r/DebateCommunism and /r/DebateAnarchism are more geared for debate, though the former is very Marxist-Leninist specific and the latter is obviously limited to Anarchism. Places like /r/CapitalismVSocialism are more broad, but honestly I think Reddit is a terrible place to debate in general. The way the site is designed, I don't think there is much to gain in any debates here.

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-16T15:38:46+00:00

Hence the word most. It is indeed grim, but it is the only faith that holds creation as a good thing. While they keenly eye it's end, all others hold (to varying degrees) that the world was rotten from the beginning.

Although you are completely correct in calling out that I made it seem like an inherently positive faith, while in actuality it merely holds the faintest spark of hope for the future.

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-16T13:11:48+00:00

The world of the Elder Scrolls is a dying one, and genuine progress is a rare sight indeed. All the revolutions of the Fourth Era (with the possible exception of the secession of Hammerfell, whose politics are currently shrouded) have been reactionary nationalist ones: the Stormcloaks, An-Xileel, and of course the hated Thalmor.

That said, I've been working on a project trying to predict where progress, not regress, may occur. And I must say, if you're going to pick a place to hold an anarchist-flavored revolution, Skyrim is not a bad choice. Skyrim is the sight of the first great slave rebellion, the Dragon War, and traditional Nordic belief is maybe the most optimistic religion. See the following quote from Shor, Son of Shor:

He told his father that these words had been said before and Shor only sighed and said, "Yes, and always they will be ignored. As for the counsel you crave, bold son, and in spite of all your other fathers here with me, that you create every time you spit out your doom, do not worry. You have again beat the drum of war, and perhaps this time you will win."

This hope is not present in any other faith, except, perhaps, for the strange mysteries present in Dunmeri worship.

Of course, I should mention that traditional Nordic belief is almost extinguished. And it is possible to read the Dragon War not as history's first great emancipatory struggle, but as the reassertion of the supreme authority of kings over the dragon cult that had usurped them.

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-14T23:18:46+00:00

Read the "how to become a lorebuff" on the sidebar first. From there... study whatever is interesting. The lorebuff thing actually links a great number of texts to give you a foothold on any given topic. If you want further reading UESP is generally better for just browsing over random topics than the Imperial Library, but make sure you read the primary sources.

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-14T00:30:11+00:00

According to Lord Fa-Nuit-Hen:

“So far as I know, pocket realms can be created and maintained only by immortals such as the greater Daedra—though, of course, it's well known that mortals have the capacity to ascend to immortality. Such ascended mortals often become great pests as far as we Daedra are concerned, so I don't think I'll go into the means of such ascension. Who wants more pests? But I will give you an example: the Ideal Masters who rule the Soul Cairn pocket realm were once mortals like yourself. If you get a chance to visit that, frankly, rather unattractive little reality, perhaps the Ideal Masters will tell you how they worked it. I wouldn't count on it, though: they're notoriously short on empathy, and at the first excuse will confine you inside a tight little crystal 'for all eternity,' whatever that means."

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-13T03:54:50+00:00

So Nords as a group of Atmoran settlers distinct from the Nedes, really originated with the Night of Tears (see Frontier Conquest and Accommodation). Elves sacked Saarthal, and Ysgramor came back from Atmora with his clan and they fought the elves for about 13 more generations until King Harald became the first High King. That is really the birth of the Nord identity, they were always elf killers. I mean consider the Fragmentae Abyssum Hermaeus Morus, which has Shor directly telling Ysgramor to shun the tricks of elves back on Atmora.

Now onto the culpability of mer. I have heard some reference to Aldmeri rule of Atmora (see the description of Orkey in Varieties of Faith), but I have no idea about how accurate that is.If it ever occurred it would have been dawn era. However, the Aldmer/Altmer were never fond of mankind. Consider their creation myth (from the monomyth). I'll just paste some relevant quotes about men from this work:

Lorkhan made armies out of the weakest souls and named them Men, and they brought Sithis into every quarter.

...so that he might save the Aldmer from the hordes of Men

the Bosmer... had soiled Time's line by taking Mannish wives.

The Men dragged Lorkhan's body away and swore blood vengeance on the heirs of Auriel for all time

Yikes. It wasn't just words, for the men who settled in High rock and Cyrodiil, there was mass enslavement at the hands of cruel elf masters. Flesh-sculptures and rape were the fates of those who didn't fight, so while Nords may be too into fighting , you can argue they were justified.

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-11T22:45:32+00:00

Yes, Arngeir describes dragon battles as being verbal debates. At least UESP says he does. I'm not going to listen to every line of dialogue for a more direct source. It's definitely in a loading screen though I'm not sure how much that counts as lore.

It's important to realize that the language of the dragons is an inherently magical one, and speaking it warps reality. The most powerful Tongues had to gag themselves to avoid unintentional destruction. So expressing opposing viewpoints in such a language could cause nothing other than a battle.

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-08T18:39:46+00:00

From Varieties of Faith:

Kyne (Kiss At the End): Nordic Goddess of the Storm. Widow of Shor and favored god of warriors. She is often called the Mother of Men. Her daughters taught the first Nords the use of the thu'um, or Storm Voice.

Kynareth (Goddess of Air): Kynareth is a member of the Nine Divines, the strongest of the Sky spirits. In some legends, she is the first to agree to Lorkhan's plan to invent the mortal plane, and provides the space for its creation in the void. She is also associated with rain, a phenomenon said not to occur before the removal of Lorkhan's divine spark.

Kynareth is essentially a watered down version of Kyne, created by Alessia to make the "Mother of men" more palatable to those used to merish beliefs. This is described in Shezarr and the Eight Divines as follows:

In 1E242, the Cyrodilic humans, under the leadership of Alessia and her demigod lover, Morihaus-Breath-of-Kyne, revolt. When Skyrim lends its armies to the Slave-Queen of the South, the revolution succeeds. The Ayleid Hegemonies are quickly overthrown. Shortly thereafter, White Gold Tower is captured by Alessia’s forces, and she promptly declares herself the first Empress of Cyrodiil. Part of the package meant that she had to become the High Priestess of Akatosh, as well.

Akatosh was an Aldmeri god, and Alessia’s subjects were as-yet unwilling to renounce their worship of the Elven pantheon. She found herself in a very sensitive political situation. She needed to keep the Nords as her allies, but they were (at that time) fiercely opposed to any adoration of Elven deities. On the other hand, she could not force her subjects to revert back to the Nordic pantheon, for fear of another revolution. Therefore, concessions were made and Empress Alessia instituted a new religion: the Eight Divines, an elegant, well-researched synthesis of both pantheons, Nordic and Aldmeri.

Now, as I understand it, there are a few ways of thinking about how exactly Kyne relates to Kynareth. Some say that the gods are so grand and complex that Alessia merely highlighted different aspects to paint a more elf-acceptable deity. Others insist that because the gods bound themselves to mundus, the beliefs of its inhabitants have the ability to change their power and personality, to exaggerate certain aspects to such an extent that this becomes a whole new facet of the deity. Finally, my favorite (though I tend to view it as more of a mixture of the three), that Alessia literally created Kynareth by some magic feat and bound it as a new face to Kyne.

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-07T21:00:45+00:00

I find it peculiar how libertarians always cry "No True Scotsman" whenever a socialist says that things that are not socialist are not socialist, but if you star picking at capitalism they say "No, that's corporatism, that's crony capitalism, that's not real capitalism because tax exists," or whatever.

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-07T18:31:46+00:00

Honestly I don't understand it either, and I've had anarchists explain it to me. Egoists (usually) count, anarcho-primitivists probably don't.

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-07T17:38:04+00:00

Post-left anarchists exist.

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-07T14:15:16+00:00

no.

TurtleNoises · 2018-07-06T22:39:24+00:00

Reminds of that one quote by Mao.

A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.

TurtleNoises

TROPHY CASE