by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Anarchy Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .403404405406407»

Goldorado wrote:Must have been nice to only have to fight WORLD War II on a single, thousand-mile front stretching from the Black to the Baltic seas. America fought a WORLD War. We fought in Europe, Africa, the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and Asia. Not to mention the home front.
Oh, by the way. Notice how Tojo DIDN'T try to sneak in through the back door while you were busy fighting the Nazis in the west? You're welcome...

And fighting in more different places somehow makes the sacrifice of US soldiers more significant? And what home front are you talking about? Do you mean the camps where people were imprisoned and tortured just for being of east Asian descent?

Your framing of this issue as "We", "You" and "You're welcome" is really grinding my gears by the way. Not because I feel attacked in any way. I'm not from eastern Europe. I wasn't even alive at the time, and neither were you, I'd be willing to wager. But a nation state such as the US is not a "We". You are not responsible for the accomplishments nor for the atrocities committed by the US military in WWII. Identifying with such concepts is nationalistic and anti-anarchist in my perception. And the fact that you had to stir up this debate from a simple post celebrating the defeat of Nazi Germany doesn't do anything to avert my suspicion.

Goldorado wrote:Not sure why you're trying to paint me as a Nazi for voicing my disapproval of a comment that glorifies the Soviet Union. Oh, wait. I know EXACTLY why you're trying to do that. Reductio ad Hitlerum. Look it up. It's a logical fallacy.
By the way, Joe Stalin was a fascist and the Soviet Union he led was a fascist nation. How is "socialism in one nation" different than "national socialism?" Wake up, dude. The conflict between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany wasn't a great ideological struggle between communism and fascism. If it was, then how do you explain the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? It was nothing but a struggle between two megalomaniacal dictators to see which one would get to hold power over the lands, peoples and resources of Eastern Europe.
Sorry to shatter your illusions.

Firstly, the fact that you've devolved into near-histrionics at the mere mention of Hitler's defeat is enough to generate suspicions about your political leanings.

Secondly, Joseph Stalin - for all his many, many flaws - was not a fascist. Fascism isn't a stand-in for 'authoritarian'. It refers to a very specific ideology, characterised by contempt for the weak, the rejection of modernism, racism, embrace of big business, and so on. Stalin met some of the criteria for fascism (strong central control, bigotry, etc.), but he didn't meet nearly all of them. Fascism is a racial and cultural ideology, whereas even authoritarian versions of communism retain their focus on class struggle. Stalin was a dictator, for sure, but not a fascist. National socialism differs from socialism in one country insofar as the former was a rhetorical guise, intended to win voters and completely divorced from actual Nazi policy, while the latter was an implementation of some genuinely socialist ideas - the abolition of private property, for example. Stalin's ideas represent the right-wing of international socialism, absolutely, but they're not comparable to Hitler's. Hitler emphatically supported the right to private property, and indeed took steps to strengthen corporations.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is pretty widely acknowledged by historians as an agreement of convenience. Stalin and Hitler were fundamentally opposed to one another, since Hitler had promised to secure lebensraum (living space) for the German people in the east, and Soviet Russia was an obstacle to those ambitions. It's worth noting here that Molotov-Ribbentrop wasn't an alliance, but merely a non-aggression pact - Stalin knew he was in no position to defeat Hitler's Germany, and hoped to buy as much time as possible with a paper-thin Pact.

To be clear, I'm a libertarian communist who oscillates between anarchism and some form of libertarian Marxism. I unequivocally condemn Joseph Stalin's authoritarian tendencies, and his counter-revolutionary behaviour in suppressing genuine working-class movements. That said, it's historically inaccurate to describe him as a fascist. An authoritarian conservative, yes. A fascist, no.

Alexiandra wrote:National socialism differs from socialism in one country insofar as the former was a rhetorical guise, intended to win voters and completely divorced from actual Nazi policy, while the latter was an implementation of some genuinely socialist ideas - the abolition of private property, for example.

To be clear, I'm a libertarian communist who oscillates between anarchism and some form of libertarian Marxism. I unequivocally condemn Joseph Stalin's authoritarian tendencies, and his counter-revolutionary behaviour in suppressing genuine working-class movements. That said, it's historically inaccurate to describe him as a fascist. An authoritarian conservative, yes. A fascist, no.

I agree with the central point here, namely that Stalin was not a fascist.

I do not believe that stalinism was an implementation of genuine socialist ideas. It was a totalitarian perversion of said ideas to consolidate power at the top of the communist party. Stalin didn't just have authoritarian conservative leanings. He was a megalomanian psychopath and mass murderer, and he pushed an ideology of totalitarianism that came close to the dystopia painted by George Orwell in 1984.
Hitler took the word "socialist" and adapted it as a brand name to lure working class people into his movement. Stalin, on the other hand, took control of an already authoritarian state-socialist movement, and took it to the totalitarain extreme.

There is no sense in arguing how bad Stalin was exactly, of course. Millions died under the regimes of both Stalin and Hitler and none of their ideologies had anything to do with libertarian socialism. It doesn't matter if industry was mostly private or under state control under fascism or socialism-in-one-country respectively. Both men did everything they could to consolidate executive and economic power at the top, in their hands, at the expense of the people.

I guess my point is that the few remaining socialist elements in the Soviet Union are not reason enough for libertarians such as ourselves to condone any aspect of that dictatorship and its ideology.

East Angria wrote:I agree with the central point here, namely that Stalin was not a fascist.

I do not believe that stalinism was an implementation of genuine socialist ideas. It was a totalitarian perversion of said ideas to consolidate power at the top of the communist party. Stalin didn't just have authoritarian conservative leanings. He was a megalomanian psychopath and mass murderer, and he pushed an ideology of totalitarianism that came close to the dystopia painted by George Orwell in 1984.
Hitler took the word "socialist" and adapted it as a brand name to lure working class people into his movement. Stalin, on the other hand, took control of an already authoritarian state-socialist movement, and took it to the totalitarain extreme.

There is no sense in arguing how bad Stalin was exactly, of course. Millions died under the regimes of both Stalin and Hitler and none of their ideologies had anything to do with libertarian socialism. It doesn't matter if industry was mostly private or under state control under fascism or socialism-in-one-country respectively. Both men did everything they could to consolidate executive and economic power at the top, in their hands, at the expense of the people.

I guess my point is that the few remaining socialist elements in the Soviet Union are not reason enough for libertarians such as ourselves to condone any aspect of that dictatorship and its ideology.

Certainly, and my intention was not to condone Stalin or his ideology. By Ďimplementation of genuine socialist ideasí, I meant to suggest that what Stalin did originated from a kernel of genuine socialism. For example, collectivization was justified as the seizure of the means of production by workers, which is a genuine socialist idea. Stalinís implementation of those ideas left a great deal to be desired, but the original idea he seized upon was genuinely socialist.

Contrast that with Hitler, who used the label Ďsocialistí while totally failing to fulfill any genuinely socialist ideas. The means of production were left in private hands, race was prioritised over class, and so on. Stalinís dictatorship was every bit as brutal and cruel as Hitlerís, but it was clothed in genuine socialist thought - its disguise was the work of genuine socialists like Marx and even Lenin (who, though hardly a libertarian socialist, was a genuine socialist nonetheless). Moreover, the rationale Stalin claimed for consolidating power in his exclusive possession - namely the need to Ďdefend the revolutioní from subversive elements - is a genuinely socialist premise, albeit one which Stalin had no intention of actually carrying out.

I suppose what Iím trying to say is that whereas Hitlerís regime was a fascist one masquerading as socialist, Stalinís regime was an authoritarian state-socialist one masquerading as a slightly less authoritarian socialist one. Stalin, as you say, was a perversion of socialism, but he was inspired by - or at least had an understanding of - genuine socialist thought in a way Hitler never was and never did. There was a kernel of genuine socialist thought beneath his perversions, but the same cannot be said of Hitler.

Goldorado wrote:Not sure why you're trying to paint me as a Nazi for voicing my disapproval of a comment that glorifies the Soviet Union. Oh, wait. I know EXACTLY why you're trying to do that. Reductio ad Hitlerum. Look it up. It's a logical fallacy.
By the way, Joe Stalin was a fascist and the Soviet Union he led was a fascist nation. How is "socialism in one nation" different than "national socialism?" Wake up, dude. The conflict between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany wasn't a great ideological struggle between communism and fascism. If it was, then how do you explain the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? It was nothing but a struggle between two megalomaniacal dictators to see which one would get to hold power over the lands, peoples and resources of Eastern Europe.
Sorry to shatter your illusions.

I'll be as civil as possible here. Huh? I think you're taking all of this a tad too personally. Perhaps be a bit more charitable? They've made it clear they don't want hostility: "Not sure why you're trying to pick a fight...." Nobody is praising Stalin, nor do I think anyone in this region would have the mind to. We all know what he's responsible for. And, he's also largely responsible to defeating the Nazis (granted he's also allied with them). We can accept that he did that one good thing, without having our opinion of him as a whole being any less negative.

Psyched that I'm 1% away from the top 10% for eco-friendliness, environmental beauty, and the black market. Hopefully I don't screw it up. I went from top 0.5% for drug use to 20% not too long ago.

Voluntarists wrote:Psyched that I'm 1% away from the top 10% for eco-friendliness, environmental beauty, and the black market. Hopefully I don't screw it up. I went from top 0.5% for drug use to 20% not too long ago.

You're sad that you've made a fun and fulfilling enough society that people don't feel as much need to self-medicate? :-)

Unfortunately my society isn't too happy. :/

My society is most rude and cultured. My youth is the most rebellious.

beat dat suckers

youth rebelliousness is always a good sign in nationstates. sadly in the real world, esp. in western countries the accelerating capitalism is making (or forcing) the youth (to be) more and more docile. today young people often, even if they share our ideals, are often rather looking to improve their cv, taking unpaid positions as something natural, instead of not playing the game and risking their position in society by standing up and getting a taste of tear gas as we did back then.

I hope for the youth to be more inclusive without having to stand up against a system they can't beat. Getting a taste of tear gas didn't bring us that much did it?

of course. i am also not blaming the youth. but i see even less potential for change now than ten or twenty years ago. i see less of a counter-culture with shared values that differ from mainstream society. if you're caught up in a wheel spending all your energy to get a decent job or earn money so you can live a normal life, you cannot spend any on questioning or opposing an unjust system.

Voluntarists wrote:I'll be as civil as possible here. Huh? I think you're taking all of this a tad too personally. Perhaps be a bit more charitable? They've made it clear they don't want hostility: "Not sure why you're trying to pick a fight...." Nobody is praising Stalin, nor do I think anyone in this region would have the mind to. We all know what he's responsible for. And, he's also largely responsible to defeating the Nazis (granted he's also allied with them). We can accept that he did that one good thing, without having our opinion of him as a whole being any less negative.

Good post. Stalin is not responsible for defeating the nazis though. Neither is Churchill, nor Roosevelt.

It was the people of the Soviet Union, of Poland, Denmark, France, Great Britain, the US, etc. etc. who stopped fascism and ended World War II. This feat cannot be attributed to any one single person, especially not to a totalitarian dictator.

page=poll/p=143072

Please vote and debate. :)

By all means, I thought we already had embassies with Gay. Let's restore that, for sure.

Howdy folks. New member here. My nation is based on the real life anarchist uprising during the Russian civil war, spearheaded by Nestor Mahno.

Volnaya Territoriya wrote:Howdy folks. New member here. My nation is based on the real life anarchist uprising during the Russian civil war, spearheaded by Nestor Mahno.

Don't mind me, just spreading the gospel:
http://www.nestormakhno.info/

Time for the most polarizing topic around: the flag of Maryland. But let's be honest . . . there's only one right answer.

All those who answer correctly will receive a complimentary Maryland-themed Covfefe!

The state of Maryland is in no way a sponsor of the Nambian Covfefe Company.

How about construction of embassies between us and Change?

I vote yes.

Equa Lib wrote:How about construction of embassies between us and Change?

I vote yes.

Polled.

Purely hypothetically speaking - what do I do if I want to abstain but do not support Serbian nationalism at the same time? ;)

Also with the United Left Alliance?

Equa Lib wrote:Also with the United Left Alliance?

we cannot have two polls running at the same time, so let's do it the old fashioned way: i vote yes.

East Angria wrote:Purely hypothetically speaking - what do I do if I want to abstain but do not support Serbian nationalism at the same time? ;)

Well, uh.. it's a joke.

Equa Lib wrote:Also with the United Left Alliance?

I ask uniamious consent to pass. 48 hours for a objection.

«12. . .403404405406407»

Advertisement