«1234567891011»
Communist bloc and the North Korean Army raided our peaceful and neutral region Sweden.
It would be much appreciated if they conduct such educational programs instide of raiding our peaceful regions (It's in our regional constitution that we are a peaceful region and will never raid others or force our ideologies by forced in to others. Communist block and communism is supposed to liberate the common people from suffering. Not to oppress them or cause hardship to the week and the vulnerable. They invaded a socialist region. We are not communists but dispatch 'Sweden' which was attached to our RMB by our former delegate clearly said that RL Sweden had fallowed Socialist policies during most part of the last 40 years or so we as a region try to fallow the same.
I hope so and hope they have the guts to answer these issues rather than baning our nation or suppressing my post.
Dose this act on raiding exposed the true nature of these communist Bloc nations and North Korean Army?
Swidish embasidor, we raided your region to stop a Nazi Europa operation that was going to take your region regardless. We have no problem working with groups outside our traditional leftist comrades in service of a greater anti-fascist goal; see The Greater German Reich. As far as I know, and as they have already stated, the raiders leading this have no desire to kick out non-fascists or natives in your region.
The real life country of Sweden has never been socialist, at most building a strong social democracy under the Palme administration. The original proposed Wage Earners’ Fund was the closest they ever got to socialism, which would've been a slow piecemeal building of a sort of democratic socialism through workers gaining shares in companies they worked and in theory eventually taking full control, but this was neutered then outright abolished in 1991. The so-called "Nordic Model" of the 70's is long gone at this point, with the state undergoing heavy privatization programs since the 90's.
This region is not meant for pointless bickering, please discuss this somewhere else if you want to continue.
Post self-deleted by Swidish embasidor.
Thanks a lot for not earlier suppressing my post. Most regions could not answer but simply suppressed it and TG my a lot. sorry If I up set you by posting it in your RMB.
We are offended not because that we are raided or that you are trying to destroy it by pass wording it and later refounding it. We are offended that We are being called Nazis. Most of us the region are real life Swedish and fly our flag. Also our former delegate Telemax is a RL Swedish player who contributed a lot to the development of the region. Our RL Sweden was invaded by Nazis and we suffered in the hand of Nazis during world war too.
Joseph Starling( Sorry If I miss spelled the name) singed the 'Moldove Ribenthrope pact' with Nazi Hitler. Knowing Russians would not interfere Hitler then invaded Poland. The conditions of the pact says that after the invasion of Poland major part of the Eastern Poland will be handed over to Russia. After the garbing Poland Hitler gave back the promised territory to Russia.
Before that when Hitler make a insurgency in Czechoslovakia and threaten them and later to annexed part of it< Soviet Union did not do any thing. When Hitler Annexed Austria, They kept silent.
After the world war started, Soviet Union invaded Finland using 'Moldove Ribenthrope pact' Finish winter war.
Finland was a fascist country then and Hitler kept quite. Only Soviet's could not win the Finish Winter war. So they made a peace negotiation with Finland (again then a Nazi regime) and singed a pact and annexed part of Finland to build naval bases( Not to liberate the working class). excepted That weaken the position of them in the international arena and weaken them in the diplomatic front.
In the Eastern front then a Fascist axis power Japan was at war with China but Soviets seem to turn a blind eye.
Luckily Mao Sedong ( Sorry If I spelled wrong) under understood the risks and correctly make a judgment and made a unified front to fight the Fascist forces. If he did not do it and kept fighting the then regime or if sided with Fascist forces; Japan will have easily won the war in China and would be difficult to defeat.(Japan kept on fighting and was the last of the Axies powers to be defeated).
When that was happening; Hitler invaded Eastern Europe, Soviets using the same 'Moldove Ribenthrope pact' threaten a war with Romania and annexed part of it. Even when Nazis u boats attacked Scandinavian merchant ships and later invaded the region including Sweden, Soviets turned a blind eye (Encouraging them to do more invasions). It was when Hitler finally turned his war machine towards soviets they entered the war. Even then it was Nazis declaring war on Soviets, not the other way round. We are thankful to the Soviets (Not the leadership who miss judged Hitler and and let him continue) and communist brother who was able to win the war on behalf of all the other countries. Soviets then helped to liberate Sweden and they suffered in the hands of Nazis than any other country in the world.
the raiders leading this have no desire to kick out non-fascists or natives in your region
Who are the fascists in our region? How do they know? The invaders lost credibility ( Do they have?) by calling us Nazis. We have a own way of socialist policies adapted to suite our country. I will explain later if you allow me to.
I do not believe that we should be discussing military affairs here in this region, it is something that has been brought it.
I do think that there is a misunderstanding between the liberation armies and the region of Sweden. The only reason why the liberation armies, to my understanding, raided the region was not to kick out the fascists that live there, but in fact kick out the spies that were considered to be fascists that have infiltrated the region. In no ways is anyone calling the region of Sweden a fascist region, we were just trying to defend it against the fascists of this site. It seems that due to the lack of cooperation, the region of Sweden has been taken over and seized by the fascists.
Post self-deleted by Manglitz.
Joseph Stalin singed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact) with Nazi Hitler in August 1939.
Knowing Russians would not interfere Hitler then invaded Poland on 1 September 1939 satrting the world war 11. The conditions of above pact signed by Soviets pact says that after the invasion of Poland major part of the Eastern Poland will be handed over to Russia. After the garbing Poland Hitler gave back the promised territory to Russia.
In March 1938, Germany annexed Austria but soviets kept silent. Before that when Hitler make a insurgency in Czechoslovakia and threaten them and later to annexed part of it Soviet Union did not do any thing. In March 1939, Germany invaded the remainder of Czechoslovakia, and annexed some parts of it and formed ‘Slovak Republic’ stalled a puppet government in it.
After the world war started, Soviet Union invaded Finland using Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact' Finish winter war.
Finland was a fascist country then and Hitler kept quite. Only Soviet's could not win the Finish Winter war. So they made a peace negotiation with Finland (again then a Nazi regime) and singed a pact and annexed part of Finland to build naval bases( Not to liberate the working class). Under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union partitioned and annexed territories of their European neighbors, Poland, Finland, Romania and the Baltic states.
Soviets continued to trade oil, iron, other metals machine parts and supplies with the Germany until Germany finally invaded them in December 1941. Guns, bombs tanks and plane made out these maternal and running on soviet oil wounded and killed many innocent civilians in European countries. Finally these guns and boms trued on the Soviets in December 1941 and they killed millions of soviets citizens, communist comrades, and the Red Army personal.
Luckily Mao Sedong ( Sorry If I spelled wrong) under understood the risks and correctly make a judgment and made a unified front to fight the Fascist forces. If he did not do it and kept fighting the then regime or if sided with Fascist forces; Japan will have easily won the war in China and would be difficult to defeat.(Japan kept on fighting and was the last of the Axis powers to be defeated). Soviets rather than fighting the Nazis signed a yet an other pact with the Fascist Japan. Japan and the Soviet Union eventually signed a Neutrality Pact in April 1941.
So It seems communists had and still having a long history of working together with Fascist and Nazis. Even Signing mutual defense pacts.
In the 1940's the Maoists aligned themselves with the KMT, a fascist group in China, in order to defeat the Japanese threat invading the Chinese. This is also a sign between two sides in order to attain a goal. This shows that politics are still politics and alliances of such may be inevitable in order to preserve a future.
Oh god where do I begin?
OK from the top.
For your first claim, I'm going to direct you to a video that goes quite in depth on that issue: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kp5CU3OB2UU
Your second and third claim, when the German army marched into Austria, they were cheered on, there was popular support in Austria for the Ansluss and every country at the time recognized it as German territory, the only country that questioned it was Italy, they wanted a puppet state in Austria so they could exert more influence over the Balkans.
When the Czech crisis occurred, the leaders of Germany, Italy, France and Britain agreed that Germany can have the sudenland, Czechoslovakia was not invited to the conference and was pressured by the west to concede, and the Czechs did not want help form the USSR, as there government was Anti-Communist.
For your forth claim I direct you to another video that goes into detail about this topic, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9_DQ3IhNH9o
Your fifth claim, one more of hipocracy, the US, Latin America, Sweden, Turkey Iran and other countries continued to trade with Germany after the war began and the USSR could not work in complete isolation.
The USSR was the only nation helping China against Japan and the USSR was the one that propsed the Chinese United Front against Japan, even after the war the Soviets wanted the Chinese United Front to stay together, but it broke down and the Chinese Civil War resumed, so no, us Communists don't have a "long history of working together" with Nazis and Fascists, the west on the otherhand...
Political commissar v ming, Marxist Scholar Vanguard, and Structural marxism
Given the week of no discourse, I think I might start a discussion, what do you think of the peace talks in Colombia? Is this a good/nessercary thing for the FARC to do? Or is it the beginning of FARC's transition to a mainstream Social-Democratic political party? How will this effect other Peoples Wars in Latin America and the world?
Marxist Scholar Vanguard and Structural marxism
I'm not sure personally but I'm curious to learn more on the subject as well as a little more about FARC's history. Any comrades here want to volunteer to educate us on the FARC struggle?
"Comrades from our closest comrade region North Korea has invited to open the region to more intellectual debate and invitations from regions that may not be left wing to open discussion. As founder, I encourage this plan. Let us open arms to all intellectuals wishing to learn more and have sophisticated debates in this region."
I think North Korea was just looking for a place to conduct educational activities among leftists in. I'm not sure we want rightists interrupting our school. I'm here to put effort into educating the left, I won't be spending my time arguing with the right, there's other places for that.
From what I know the FARC or officially, The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia - Peoples Army is that the movement rose out of the era of political violence in Colombia, 'La Violencia' when the Communist Party of Colombia had established numerous small enclaves of resistance.
Shortly after the main revolt was put down, the Colombian Armed Forces forces cracked down on them, leading to the Colombian Communist Party forming its Military wing, the FARC.
They began as a small guerrilla organization in the Colombian jungle in 1964.
They had based there political ideology the Theories of Marxism-Leninism and Che Guevara's Foco theory.
They were/are supported by Cuba, China, North Korea, the Soviet Union and some of the Eastern Bloc countries aswell as the IRA, the Paraguayan People's Army, the Shining Path and other revolutionary groups.
They waged war against the Colombian government as well as rightwing paramilitaries for over 50 years, attempting to topple the Government.
after the Collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, support for the FARC fell,and they got increasingly involved in illegal drug trafficking (especially cocaine) and were one of the targets of the 'War on Drugs'.
They grew increasingly weak during the 1990s and 2000s and with the so-called 'pink tide' sweeping Latin America, the FARC started to believe more in social-democracy, particularly Bolivarianism (due to the naboring Venezuela, and the successes of Bolivarianism there) and began to be more open to negotiations with the Colombian government, leading to the situation that we have now.
There's a lot more about the FARC, but I don't really know, which is why I proposed the idea for discussion in the first place.
Too bad that this intellectual region is not active :/
It would make Nationstates a more serious "political simulator"
Sorelian theories of political violence as a precursor to Marxian and Fascist activism.
I don't believe that Sorelian theories of political violence are nessercary nor a "precursor" to Marxist activism or indeed, Marxist advocation for political Violence.
However, its influence on the effect of fascist militancy could be more present, but, fascism by its very nature and admission, supports Violence which could have arose without the need of Sorelian theories of political Violence.
Post by Fascist intellectuals suppressed by 
Marxist Scholar Vanguard.
By way of an introduction to a Leftist interpretation to Sorel.
https://libcom.org/library/sorels-reflections-violence-poverty-voluntarism
Obviously I'm not sure as to whereabouts on the Marxian gradient of narratives this article lies so it may be open to a degree of analysis and interpretation.
With regards Fascism (please note capital "F" to distinguish from lower case generic "fascism" as a catch-all of reactionary rightist currents) Sorel represents the revolutionary-syndicalist activism that was to heavily influence Fascist militancy in France, Spain and, of course, Italy and even Britain.
Political violence, in context, isn't the sole reserve of Fascism or even generic fascism, hence Marxian narratives upon "revolution". In recognising its intellectual precursors however, I would contend that Fascism is more true to itself than the varying Marxian narratives
Is this some weak attempt at a "gotcha" against Marxists, like bringing up Le Cercle Proudhon to spite anarchists? Like Proudhon, Sorel is not to be immediately discarded for what he later influenced, but he is rarely if ever read by modern Marxists; it's hugely overstating his reach to see him as anything more than a footnote in leftist hisory among many other unorthodox/eccentric leftists of his period. Plenty of Marxists plainly reject the sort of economism he promoted, from Lenin's emphasis on pushing beyond the trade-union consciousness of workers and opposition to the Workers' Opposition's near syndicalism to modern trends in Marxism inspired by Gramsci. In particular, you may be interested in looking into the work of council communists who argued that even ostensibly revolutionary or radical unions/syndicates will fall into reformism and opportunism; though not a position made in response to Sorel, it's direct counter to his point of view from other Marxists.
Marxists have been open about the advocacy of revolutionary violence against our class enemies from the very beginning:
"...[T]he very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm
Marxists have written entire works defending the use of revolutionary violence, anarchists as well... how we can said to be untrue to ourselves on that subject at least makes little sense.
Post by Fascist intellectuals suppressed by Marxist Scholar Vanguard.
Not necessarily. Trotsky himself as commander of the Bolshevik's Red Army engaged in the worst excesses of violence against "class enemies" and then went onto theorize for "entryism" in the West. Similarly Gramsci could be argued to have advocated similar oppurtunistic methods when faced by an overwhelming superior military and industrial host-society.
The criteria for establishing revolutionary violence in Marxism appears generally when the "foot soldiers" ie the proletariat, have been agitated and indoctrinated enough to be deemed capable of achieving a Marxian "class consciousness" that can be directed against the targets of the bourgeoisie.
Obviously, there is an innate mistrust of the workers actually forming themselves into self-representative bodies such as syndicalism or trade unions because they veer from the Marxian narrative and start to act in securing their own interests, such as reforms, rather than following the demands of the revolutionary "elite".
Clearly Sorel came to be rejected by Marxism because he didn't stick to the script and entered into that gray area where, as Mussolini noted, Socialism leads to Nationalism and into similar undogmatic foggy areas where realpolitik and geopolitics meet and where Stalin, Tito and North Korea ended up.
Obviously, I also appreciate that I am in the "lions den" here.
Supporting revolutionary violence doesn't mean abandoning all other political tactics. Council communists were just as critical towards Trotsky as they were towards syndicalists if not more so. As Gramsci was a standard Marxist-Leninist aside from his theoretical innovations, he would likely have faced similar critiques from council communists had they addressed his work (as an Italian Gramsci mainly dealt with the other current of left communists, Bordigists, when it came to criticism from the left).
Opposition to bare syndicalism doesn't come from a "mistrust" of workers (though Marxists shouldn't fetishize them or fall into tailism), but an understanding of the dynamics of power in society. We try to have a wider perspective, not simply addressing the base but the superstructure as well, something economistic tendencies tend to miss out on. Worth noting are lesser known Marxists like Daniel De Leon who fused syndicalism with Marxism; still, he supported a separate political organization to address political power.
Outside of left communists, Marxists are generally fine with workers bettering their own conditions under capitalism but don't see it as a lasting solution. Reformism alone is a trap, but some like Trotsky with his Transitional Program thought that it could have revolutionary potential, not through the reforms itself, but through workers realizing their power in struggles for these reforms and understanding the limitations of capitalism to fulfill their demands. To go further back, Marx wrote a short article called Political Indifferentism that was a scathing attack on the leftists of his time who opposed any reforms.
Our end goal is international, but support national self-determination has been a part of Marxism far before we took power anywhere and had to deal with any realpolitik. Lenin of course elaborated more on this subject, but Marx himself touched on it with his support for national liberation in Ireland and Poland. As Marx said in Capital, "Labor in the white skin can never free itself as long as labor in the black skin is branded"; to me, this illustrates that any authentic internationalism is predicated on the liberation of oppressed nationalities.
Sorel was not rejected, which implies his work was discussed and debated across the left, he's simply unknown to most as I said before. Kautsky would be a better example of a "rejected" Marxist. I'm struggling to find leftists contemporary to Sorel that even mention his work, be it in a positive or negative manner.
Post by Fascist intellectuals suppressed by Marxist Scholar Vanguard.
I've had difficulty myself in finding Sorel's place amongst contemporary Marxist commentators although, to be fair, there was quite a lot going on around his time. I would suggest that he was "close" to orthodox Marxism in his notions of "catastrophic" Socialism centred around the idea of the General Strike also in his admitted support for Lenin.
I should imagine where his "rejection" (for the want of a better word) by the leftists stems from is in his anti-materialism and anti-determinism (both endorsed by orthodox Marxism) and his subsequent support for Maurras's proto-Fascist Action Française.
His syndicalist organising would, of course, be instrumental in the squadrista of the Fascisti and ,perhaps even more directly, in the JONS and Falangists in Spain. Taken more directly in context, his theories on political violence, must be addressed more so as political action to achieve a revolutionary state. This is true for Marxism (although his "rejection" or eclipse even by more prominent Marxists arguably overshadows his own findings even though Gramsci picked up on them) but probably more so for Fascism, the originating force of the Third Position as the principle of National-Revolution against the globalisng materialist trends of finance-democracy and international communism.
This globalizing trend in Marxism itself ultimately belies any legitimacy that it may give to a so-called "national-liberation" struggle in pretty much the same way that Capitalist Third World sweatshops are in some way empowering the local population. Essentially it is only a National-Revolution native to its region and populace that can effectively self-determine itself. Communism has had to compete with Capitalism which, for all of its grinding poverty and injustices, has basically won out in the end. As an economic model at least, Capitalism provided for a seeming degree of national determinism replacing foreign or "colonialist" investors with an indigineous boss-class. I'm not implying that this is National-Revolutionary but it does illustrate how Capitalism's function is neither nationalist or revolutionary.
Marxist Concept: "Base and Superstructure "
Base and Superstructure, what is it?
Well the theory of base and superstructure is the idea that all of what exists in the human social conception is bound by fundamental rules of how society establishes itself.
Starting off, the base. What is the base? The Base is all the means of and relation to production , so tools factory's, reasorces, labor, property etc and the proletariat, Capitalist, Peasantry, Petite-Bourgeois etc.
These means of and relation to production then impact the existence of the superstructure.
What is the superstructure? The Superstructure is what exists Socially; culture, education, religion, law, politics, The State etc, are all the result of the base.
The Superstructure is then used to justify the Base, give a reason for it to exist, for example in Capitalism we have the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat(the relation of production).
The Bourgeoisie own the means of production, and the Proletariat work it, generating value for the Bourgeoisie; this is the Base.
The Bourgeoisie then creates laws, education, and Political Forces to justify and enforce the established base on the Proletariat, even though it's against their interests.
The Superstructure varies and develops unevenly in societal activities such as politics and art, which is a part of the reason why we have variations of art and political positions (such as areselfs) that disagree with said established social norms.
To put simply, the base exists based on the means and relation to production, which then crates the superstructure, which justifies the Base.
The Theory of base and Superstructure applies to all societies, Capitalism, Feudalism, Fascism, Socialism etc.
Which is why when we are in the process of building Socialism, we need to understand this process in order to successfully reach our goals, as well as how to effectively combat Capitalism.
«1234567891011»
Advertisement
