Controversial and/or Unpopular, Personal/Political opinions

Post Reply New Topic

There's another potential way things could go wrong.

The far-left "crazies" enact some extreme policies like single payer healthcare for all or other policies like they advocate for and the reaction from certain sectors of the population destroys what's left.

There's some pretty big differences from the analogies you make, mostly that if the left come to power in the US, it will likely be via the ballot box and that tends to tame authoritarian tendencies compared to the typical situation after an armed revolution.

The American Revolution played a huge role in driving early Anglo settlement in my country; the violence towards loyalists resulted in an exodus of the United Empire Loyalists to Canada and the Maritimes. This is likely why so much of Canadians national identity even now is specifically tied to not being American.

It's funny that you bring up the loyalists and American Revolution. My homestate happens to be Georgia, a state that was once one of the original 13 colonies named after King George II.

And Georgia was originally a 'loyalist' state to the crown. But got suckered into fighting for the American side I guess.

Also another weird thing I read somewhere online is that when Georgia was first founded as a colony they were originally against slavery and had banned it but somehow became pro-slavery shortly after it was founded.

I guess human greed ruins everything.

100%, whether it's greed for wealth or for power.

I can see a colony initially opposing slavery because they wish to be egalitarian, only for a few people to realize they can get a lot richer if they start relying on slavery, putting everyone who doesn't participate in it at an economic disadvantage that effectively coerces more people into degrading themselves through the ownership of their fellow man.

Loyalists made up like a third of the population of the colonies at that time so there were a lot of them. I feel like in some ways Manifest Destiny was doomed by the same act that enabled it (the revolution both enabled that mindset to sink in, but also created a population that were bound to resist it).

1. Stalin tried to resign multiple times from his position as the General Secretary but was unanimously rejected. In 1927, he said: "What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.". It was not an act to garner sympathy, it was an act of dignity because he was embarrassed by the "will" that was read in the 13th Congress in May 1924. He tried to resign two more times in 1926 and 1927, and one more time in 1952 which was also rejected. These were no mindless "party apparatchiks" as the opposition (liberals, anarchist, and the West) claims.

2. The unified power of the state of the USSR belonged to the Supreme Soviet which was the highest supreme state organ of the power (Article 30, 1936 constitution). Politburo was the highest executive authority elected by the Central Committee. Day-to-day micromanagement was conducted by the Secretariat. Each Union Republic had its own Constitution, which took into account the specific features of the Republic and was drawn up in full conformity with the all-Union Constitution (Article 16). Legislative elections were held in the USSR from 1922 to 1989, regional ones from 1938 to 1990, local ones from 1922 to 1927.

3. In March 17th, 1991, an union-wide referendum was held in which the populace were asked about preserving the USSR. 77% of the people voted "Yes" on preserving the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. However, after that, Gorbachov tried to host a ceremony in decentralizing the USSR which led to an attempt to save USSR one last time in August 1991 by the loyalists to the Motherland who put Gorbachov under house arrest (should have executed him on spot there though). The people wanted USSR preserved, not regressed as Gorbachov intended. In the end, the Western-backed nationalists triumphed in the USSR and it was dissolved. Russia is far worse without socialism and many people in Russia are very nostalgic about the USSR because of the socioeconomic hardship Russia underwent in 1990s and now is going in the 2020s due to an oligarchy created as a result of pro-Western Yeltsin.

4. The last part you concern of tells me that you think socialism will inevitably lead to just capitalism again. You've called the socialist ideal "fascistic" (red fascism) and have defined socialism in a liberal framework and not within its own framework established by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Socialism does not rely on core principles from Joe Biden or Barack Obama or Jens Stoltenberg or Keir Starmer (as right-wingers and far-right tend to label) that you think are more valid than Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin.

I'm not sure what the liberals you name have to do with socialism, given that they're not socialists by any worthwhile definition. You're claiming that 'I think they're more valid than Marx, etc' without any basis whatsoever.

As for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc, they're also not worthwhile thought leaders considering what they established is a deformed parody of socialism at best and can more fairly be viewed as state capitalism. In practice they're no more useful as role models for socialism than the liberals you mentioned.

Leninism isn't the socialist ideal, it's a disaster. Only Leninists would insist that Leninism is the socialist ideal or that Leninism is the only correct path for socialists to consider. You should read what Emma Goldman had to say about Lenin's failed experiment, considering that she lived under it for many years and was initially enthusiastic to participate in it.

I understand your special interest is nostalgia for an authoritarian dictatorship, but that doesn't mean an authoritarian dictatorship is a desirable society to live under for anyone who isn't viewing it through the lens of a special interest.

*sings in showtune voice*

Ohhhhhh Tankies! Tankies! Tankies! They're naive and mean and cranky!

Tankies! Tankies! Tankies! Their heroes are all wanky!

Tankies! Tankies! Tankies! They deserve a big spanky!

Tankies! Tankies! Tankies! Better Dead than a Red Taaaaaaankie!! !!

Marxism-Leninism is very reliable and far more socialist than "democratic socialism" Bernie bros and socdems who want to keep capitalism. I don't want capitalism! I want socialism! I want state socialism! Power be to the great Proletarian dictatorship! Socialism is not capitalism with a human face that demsocs and right-wingers paint it to be. Socialism is not when basic welfare reforms. Socialism is its own system, a system that guides towards communism. It is this very originality that one should stick to, if they are committed to the cause.

For "special interests" part, here's a thing. Not everyone should be forced into a party. A party should restrict itself to those most committed and loyal to the cause. If your special interest is being committed to the cause through politics, welcome to the party. Besides, people who are members of the party should (per my own vision) vote on political matters as well as vote in intra-party elections during the congresses. For those not interested, fine. You don't need to be a party member strictly, but neither will you have the right (regardless of your position) to criticize socialism. You want a request? Do so with a local representative, who will forward this to the local committee, bound by the rules of the broadened civil law and political law.

Also yes, the past feels rather better to me than the present. Communists should not fear the past, only condemn the bad things of the past and support the good things from the past. For example, when USSR fell, the VAZ 2106 Zhiguli car did not just go out of production (refused to by the will of the Russian people) because uh someone said "ok communism ded, time to move on". It continued production up until 2006! A late 1960s - early 1970s car was produced up until 2006! It never changed its shape! It only modernized important things within its interior but kept its late 1960s - early 1970s style.

Socialism did not "deform" because of Lenin, Stalin or Mao. If you wanna know about "deformity", look into the decadent West. There, they deformed socialism into a libertine insanity where there are anarchists, social democrats, democratic socialists, libertarian socialists, etc. Socialism was deformed by the West, not by socialists.

Is that a Foster's Home for an Imaginary Friends reference?!

I think the world would be a much better place if people unpacked a lot of their beliefs, where they came from, and the overall impact of how those beliefs affect the people around them.

I am not a fan of Liberals, Libertarians, Republicans, the alt-right, establishment Democrats, or anyone else remotely okay with the status quo that is destroying communities and the world.

YES!! !!

I see you are a man of culture!

Lol Nah just a man who watched a LOT of cartoons as a kid.

Cutting down Flock cameras isn't vandalism, it's justified direct action.

I honor those who have watched good old cartoons from like the 1930s all the way to 2000s. I was born in the 2000s and thus grew up with such cartoons.

Psychopathic traits are the major key to financial success in todays society. Male-dominated jobs are better paid than female-dominated jobs not because they are male-dominated but because they play to psychopatic strenghts instead of empathy and caring. The psychopaths in the high paying jobs are then much better than the low paid empaths to argue why their jobs require high competence and should be highly paid.

I have to disagree. Having a ruthless cutthroat approach to gaining wealth and using that wealth to abuse power has always been a thing throughout time.