BrythonLexi

Yeah, this is absurd. Ad upvotes/downvotes don't do anything meaningful. Can you buy upvotes for credits now?? What about fixing the multiple treaties bug? What about preventing the flame war between left and right that has been going OOC for months now? What's more important? An "achievement" for surviving 2020, or your community fracturing in half and feature breaking bugs?

I can't, in good faith, continue supporting my own report here. The events of today in the Capitol have stunned me and make me realise the importance of unity instead of difference. Do as you wish - be it nothing or not. But I want to bury hatchets.

After the events of today, I cannot, in earnest honesty, continue arguments that will devolve into ad hominem attacks. Attack me all you wish, but I cannot argue anything more but the unity of the American people in the wake of the blood spilled in the Capitol today. Communist or fascist. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or even independent. It doesn't matter - no socioeconomic system of ours cannot work without the content of the governed, be it capitalism, communism, or any other forms. We are all workers. We are all humans. We are in this together.

Forum Name: Aqua-Corpsman Link to Post: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/30512-yet-another-socialism-thread/page/2/&tab=comments#comment-482625 Nature of Violation: Admits to being an "associate member" of the Three Percenters, which Wikipedia lists as a "American and Canadian far-right militia movement and paramilitary group" While not listed as a terrorist organisation, it is still acknowledged as a paramilitary established for political purposes, whose members have been previously arrested for actions against civilians such as the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, plotting an Oklahoma City vehicle bomb, and threatening armed protests outside the Oregon State Capitol.

I don't think its fruitful to have this discussion anymore. In what way is a militarised group who commits violent crime (Kyle Rittenhouse, for example) against civilian targets for political reasons not a terrorist group? I think this is where I have to disengage, if you can honestly argue that such an organisation doesn't qualify as a terrorist group.

Yeah, that's fair! I tend to think of society as being modular in that regard (a nation being a larger community, a neighborhood being a small nation), so that probably influences how we perceive things. My criticism of that theory where we protect people is that we only add in discrimination protections for, say, racial and ethnic groups when the national community at large perceives those protections as being needed. So, by my modular view of society, it's just a larger step up of a community - and getting 10k people to agree is easier than 300 million.

I like these questions, a lot! For social-democrats being / not being socialists, that actually is a pretty large debate in of itself. I'd definitely prefer them over liberals and conservatives, that's for sure! For the questions of advanced industry, plague, etc: That's already what happens on a macro scale with current nation-states, is it not? The world's leading figures don't work out vaccines together - it's national races. Resource chains, etc are also something that already happens on an international level with trade agreements between countries - could that not happen on a micro level as well? Electricity follows the same way As for large proportions of people not wanting to take part, let them. Let those non-anarchists have their own places in which to live, free from the communes. The freedom of choice is one of our key principles, of course. As for tribalism, that already happens on a national level as well. It'd be a shame if it came to war, but I guess it'd never be possible to erase that. For discrimination in these systems, I can't really say I have an answer - as that question propogates many different types of societies. There will always be some form of discrimination in countries/places, and one can hope that there will be those who take care of the oppressed. Those changes have to come from society, whatever its form - be it under capitalism, socialism, or (gods forbid) fascism.

I am a supporter of UBI as well, but I don't think its enough. Anarchists have governments as well, and I fail to see how Zapatistas living off the land means anything; if anything, thats even more an example of independence. The label of terrorism is one that states put on organisations and militant groups that they don't like - Trump wanted Antifa labeled as anarchists despite the lack of an organised structure, and the USA won't label its friends in the Middle East as terrorists until they're no longer our friends. To be labeled as terrorist only means that the powers at be disagree with your message; which is why, again, Trump wanted Antifa labeled terrorists but the Proud Boys don't get that label. Systemically in pain being the large scale poverty that you mention with those specific examples. People who have no chance of escaping the cycle of poverty due to the lack of support. We are still forced to work - that's the problem! If you don't work, you starve - simple as that. And most people are still poor - our income inequality is larger than it was before the French Revolution! A direct democracy, organised at the local level like in ancient Athens. The community would decide themselves how to work for the future.

In a way, I am against charity - not because it's bad, but because it shouldn't be up to charities to take care of people. That's supposed to be what our taxes go to in the current system, and is why taxes are notoriously high in mixed economy countries like in Scandinavia. While we are under governments like this, it should be their job to take care of the citizenry. I find it folly to say that abandoning our current system would bring us all the way back to before the Industrial Revolution. Did the Reich abandoning democracy and embracing a whole new social order turn WW2 Germany into the HRE? No - in fact, they did well economically before the Allies did the right thing and fought them on the beaches [etc. etc.] The Catalonians didn't lose or abandon electricity when they declared themselves, only losing it in the Civil War as all sides had. The Zapatistas, who are anarchists surviving to this day in Mexico, do have the essentials of life. I push for change and for the welfare of my fellow workers because it is the right thing to do - I feel it wrong to accept a society where people are systemically in pain like this. And while I understand there is, obviously, risk in social change - to me, that's a risk worth taking to pursue the rights of all. And if revolution never comes? Fine, but one can at least hope to drive enough social change to make things better for those on the bottom.

An addition I guess: What i'm saying by me living in anarchism is not that i'm in an anarchist society (clearly). What I mean is that the values in my life and how I act, in some way, are under the attempt of following anarchist principles. I give to the needy not in exchange for anything, but to help out those who need it. I provide what labour I can, and am helped where I need it. We all have our ways we can help, and we all have ways in which we need help. And I, for one, am honoured to do my part in keeping others afloat - gods know others have kept me afloat for 2 years

Cool, aight. Simply put, the communes would give people who don't want to take part in it the materials they need to be independent - their own land and the materials to use said land. Those who want to join communes would be signing some sort of contract for living there - those who don't, again, would have the ability to go off on their own and do what they wish. The myth of individuality being erased under communism and anarchism is just that, a myth. Nobody is saying that everybody must be the same - in fact, i'd argue that capitalism is more a risk of people becoming "the same". So many people have dreams of things like the arts, or writing, or being a scientist - and must shelve that for factory work or the service industry because the arts don't pay. People's professions today are based on what pays - and for most Americans, that means retail or fast food, with no sense of what the worker wants in life. Under the anarchist system, people in communes would indeed be obligated to work some number of hours to keep society running - but after those few (10-20 hr/wk estimate) hours of work, those people could expand out and explore themselves, free of the exhaustion that full-time capitalist labour gives. Under anarchism, artists could explore their talent without being shackled to 40-60 hours a week of useless "service" and be too tired to expand themselves. I'm greatly sorry that you've gone through such medical issues, and it's such a shame. But that is not what we want to throw away - we believe the individual can be even greater than before, once their bread has been secured (in the way it hasn't in today's society). Capitalism is not the most innovative system, first off. Humans have been developing their craft of invention since our dawn, and our ceaseless tinkering has never ended. I've done so much programming, myself, not to innovate or drive a profit - but because I enjoy my craft. I wouldn't throw that out the door. And why would you say techological advancement is the goal of society? While that is one valid answer to things, think about other ways to measure society. Even if capitalism is the most efficient and innovative system, I measure a society based on how the least among it are treated. To me, capitalism is a poison because it inherently means that those at the bottom of the chain - the disabled and poor - are left to suffer (See: The Reserve Army of Labor) I truly believe anarchism is the way forward, and here's why - we rely on eachother, not the elites. Growing up, the biggest people in my life have been those in my community - my family, my friends, my coworkers. When all went to hell, the state left me with only enough for food (finding a job was impossible - small town, back injury, and my motel being so far away from any job it would be impossible to keep one). But who rescued me but friends, and offered help but charities? To me, i'm living in anarchism already - mutual aid, our core tenant, is something I live every day; helping others not for profit, but so that we are all better off. I wish to destroy the states and eat the rich because, in my eyes, us workers can do more alone than we can under those bosses. Us workers help eachother sustain ourselves, even under a system that incentivises personal greed. Us workers don't give food to he who can pay most - in my experience, we share food amongst ourselves so everybody eats. It's the most natural system, and capitalism poisons the tree and leaves innocent victims of poverty and disease in the richest country on Earth.

I'm confused? What are you asking / saying?

I suppose that is a good place to stop, agreeing to disagree. My last words, myself, will be this: To care for our kin is important - and while I understand the nature to be ambivalent towards strangers, I feel it's best to extend that hand; as maybe someday you will be the one in need of help from strangers. We are all together in this world - be it he who reaps the corn, sews the shirts, or keeps the internet intact. Thank you for your kindness in this discussion, and I hope you sleep well.

I'll try to keep the words brief (mostly because it's getting late for me), but let's do this! Actually, you weren't really on my mind at all for this! ^^; I was honestly just thinking about it while browsing my memes folder. My actions are my own in this case. Yeah, people do think of the USSR as the communist vanguard. I'm... pretty sure I didn't deny that people think of Germany/USA/USSR - just that it's much more nuanced than that. I don't have enough information on how people believed the Bolsheviks would fail or not, but there were socialists in the West before and after the Russian Revolution. That and there are still tankies out there, so people didn't simply just become anarchists or liberals. And even if they all did, that represents growth and adjusting belief systems from data. For Cuba/Belize/Vietnam, I do have to criticise that. Cuba's GDP is 76th in the world by capita, and has the 70th highest Human Development Index - putting it around the 2nd quartile for both. Vietnam is, however, 115th and 117th respectively - which isn't as great. I must criticise the slums argument, however, as that would come into whataboutism for me (many Americans *do* live in slums or are fully homeless; my grassroots campaigning in Greene County was to repair the Section 8 housing there in Catskill). As for the banana republic argument, that was indeed the United States through and through - like that Sam O'Nella meme you linked states. The countries would be overthrown only when they starting promoting workers rights laws, minimum wages, etc; often with American support. I'd tie the two into eachother immediately and continually, as it was mostly American companies that would push for such coups. I'm skeptical of the attribution of Nazis with socialism, as they literally imprisoned socialists as part of the Holocaust. This article goes into direct quotes that Hitler discusses about workers being "unable to understand socialism" and "worker's councils getting in the way" which is... pretty anti-socialist given that the common definition of socialism is when workers own the means of production. I'd argue that colonialism is capitalism - directly. The reason that European empires went to conquer new lands was to bring material wealth of gold and riches to the motherland. Is the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few not, in some way, capitalism? Be it the direct conquest of lands for the Crown (just the monarch), or the settlement of trade companies like the Dutch East India Company. Marx does go into discussion the transition from feudalism, to colonialism, to capitalism. "Stuff like this happens" re: Nestle and Flint. Is that not what we're trying to change, yeah? For me, that is why I am anarchist - the local people should control their destiny, including their own water supply. Anarchism was not only in the stone age, by any definition of the word. You have the Frisian freedom, Catalonia, Freetown Christiania, worker co-ops, and I can go on and on. Anarchists don't say no government, we say local government. People who would band together when threatened - against those external or internal threats like somebody charging money for goods all make. The Democrats really don't follow the far-left at all. They make promises and don't follow through. 😕 I wish they did, or that NY was socialist, though. Local governments do exist, yes, but what power do they have compared to the State, or Washington? And yes, a California CEO doesn't control a Delawarian mother - but when half of Congress are millionaires, capitalists basically do control the government. Humans are naturally helpful, in my experience. After natural disasters, people pitch in to help eachother for free. People start charities, donate to others, and so forth. Captialism forces us to compete, not because we want to, but because we have to. I see so many artists who want to give their stuff out for free, but cannot because they have to sell their work to eat. Capitalism has only been around for a few centuries. Before that, people didn't invent to drive profits - they invented to help their country, or local area. Private enterprise did exist for millenia, but that was back when the peasantry owned the farms they worked on - instead of renting it out for a small fee every month. Additionally, many of the inventions you claim as successes of capitalism are not. While created in those capitalist societies, the workers who actually designed your iPhone or built your Android got paid only some small chunk of change, with the rich or whoever getting the bulk of the share. Alternatives argument is always a defense of the status quo. We are biased to believe our current system is best - because otherwise we would not be in it, right? I know, change is scary - we've all been there. But how do you know that? When our American founding fathers created a republic, they did not know if the experiment would last - it was just as likely that they would've all been hanged by redcoats within the year. And I know it. I've lived in anarchism. Mutual aid, people helping eachother out for nothing but the promise of paying it forward - that is what got me through my 2 years and a month of homelessness. People are more anarchist in general than you may think.

Of course! I used to be hard-right as well, being a very strong supporter of Trump. The thing that did it in for me was when he fired Comey, as that conflicted with my strong sense of 'justice' that my libertarian dad struck in me. I was then a liberal, until I suffered a back injury at work and was barely compensated for it. What I realised was that the state (and Walmart for that matter) were doing only the bare minimum to help somebody out who had nothing - and even more, I realised I was not the only one. That was my watershed moment for becoming an anarchist; that feeling of the state leaving behind its most vulnerable instead of guiding them through. I hope that some of the links I gave, if a bit heavy on reading, can give some insight onto why i'm an anarcho-communist instead of anything else. The sections on anarcho-capitalists would probably serve well in that regard.

That's also fair points, thank you! I guess I fear too much that people go "lol its always failed" and then drop the argument right there. Can I ask, myself, about the capitalism failing at first part? My education has left me.. unaware of that - mostly going "Wealth of Nations!!!1!" and then capital

I'm an anarchist, that's what I believe in! I also believe that heavy government is what interferes with the worker's attempts at survival. People often believe anarchism and chaos are synonyms, that anarchism is the state of there being lawlessness. In reality, what politically literate people mean by anarchy is the various forms of leftist liberalism. To keep it very brief, anarcho-socialists believe that the most powerful government should be at a local (town / county) level, instead of at a national level. Government in anarchist societies would be a directly democratic process, where the people of a local community work together on what to produce and how to survive. They would be socialists, as it would be the workers of that community owning their farms / textiles / etc., instead of some far off CEO or commissar. If you want some good resources for the theory of anarcho-socialism, I recommend the "Anarchist FAQ" and "Anarchy Works" by Peter Gelderloos. Both are free, and approach the topics of anarcho-socialism in a Q&A format. (Example: Section H of the Anarchist FAQ discusses why anarchists are against state socialism [Marxists, Maoists, etc] and has several questions somebody may have about that topic). The latter is an easier read, in my opinion.

I'm quite confused about this argument, honestly. For Cuba, what you're saying is that even after decades of communist rule under Castro, the maintaining of such is still a success of capitalism? Generations have grown up and died in a socialist state, yet its success was capitalist even with the near-total US embargo? This seems especially jarring given the complete revamp of the economy under Castro, as well as the economic instability from the blockade, a world collapse in sugar prices, and even further changes to the economy after the collapse of the USSR. For Vietnam, that is a fair point. The opening of the Vietnamese economy has done well, but it also hasn't completely eschewed socialist policies; given the large presense of state owned enterprise and worker cooperatives. I'd definitely be inclined to agree that a large part of what people call "communist" is indeed a butchered attempt. However, to cut them out of the argument basically means there have been no long-lasting socialist countries; which, of course, would give us very few examples for us and others to discuss - and also feeds into the narrative of "communism always fails" or the meme of "but real communism has never been tried before". Of course, we could look at how mixed economies do extremely well, or at anarchist autonomous areas like the Zapatistas, Rojava, and and isolated regions, but those also don't have international recognition as a country and don't have as easily accessible statistics.

I'll try to add on I suppose. The TL;DR of why Democratic governments are not leftist is because they support, by and large, the status quo + some social justice elements. Leftists challenge the status quo - we hate police, we hate bosses, we hate the inequality inherent in capitalism. The mainline Democrats still love money and bosses, so long as 50% of those bosses are women / black / etc.

For exactly those things, yeah. California and New York are also infamously expensive to live in, with rents being much higher than average. If the connection you're making is that California and New York are more "socialist", that would also be inaccurate. Socialism is not when the government does more stuff (Again, look at anarchist groups like the Zapatistas). The Democrats are often derided as socialists, when they have similar business motivations to the Republican party. The Democratic platform does not advocate the abolition of capitalism, but merely a higher minimum wage and more protections. While this sounds like a transition to communist wants, it is not - Democrats also advocate laws such as New York's Taylor Law, which bans strikes in favour of mandated collective bargaining. Democrats promote social equality not because it is the "morally right" thing to do, but because inequality "hurts business". They use identity politics as an argument for it hurting the economy, not people's lives. Look how hard mainline Democrats fought against Bernie Sanders in the primary - a self-described social democrat who also disavowed socialism!

Yes, with the others dead in the water - and the drama in Orbis Central - i'm rekindling this bonfire. If we're going to have a debate on communism v. capitalism, or other systems, let's do it properly. Note: I am very much an anarcho-socialist, so I am clearly biased on this matter. What I am presenting here is some misconceptions people seem to have about the left in general, and why they're misguided. Communism? So you mean the Soviet Union? While yes, the Soviet Union was a leftist county, it does not portray all leftist thoughts - much like the United States, while the example of capitalism, is not what capitalism inherently is - nor is it the purest example. The Marxist-Leninist ideaology of the Soviet Union was very much its own thing. Marxist-Leninists believe in particular that a two-phase revolution is required for the success of communims; that is, underdeveloped nations must first go through a "bourgoise revolution" installing capitalism, before a communist revolution can successfully take place. The communist revolution would be lead by a vanguard party, such as the Bolsheviks - who would eventually pave the way for the eventual destruction of class and state. I am not a Marxist-Leninist, so I am not the best to go into gritty details of the theory. Marxism-Leninism is not the only leftist ideaology. Diametrically opposed to them include a myriad of anarchist beliefs, which are also leftist in that they believe in collectivism and the end of private business and property. Most famously, anarchist movements included the Catalonians in the Spanish Civil War, the Ukranian Black Army in the Russian Revolution, and the Zapatistas in Mexico to this day. But Communism always fails! The belief in the failure of communism stems largely from the collapse of the Soviet regime, as well as the end of many Latin American leftist experiments. As for the Soviets, this is in part due to the authoritarianism of the Bolsheviks and their crushing of revolts. Thus, when information finally started to flow into the country, people could see just how much better Western Europe had it. However, this is also not a fault of communism - you can look to Cuba and Vietnam for successful Marxist-Leninist states in particular. Despite a massive US embargo and the devastating warfare to the country, respectively, Cuba and Vietnam have been some of the better places to live. Cuba's literacy rate is famously high, and Vietnam has had a fair standard of living after rebuilding from the Vietnam War. For Latin America, the failures in those countries are easily attributable to the CIA coups in leftist governments across the region. These coups are very much a well-known thing, and are often the direct reason why those countries established dictators like Pinochet or fell into chaos like Venezuela - I can't tell you what those nations would be like without CIA involvement, but I can assure you that had the USA not interfered as it had, things would be much more stable in South America. Weren't the Nazis socialists? While calling themselves National Socialists, the Nazis were not socialists by any means. People often point to the collectivist policies of Nazi Germany, there is a distinct difference - fascism is a nationalist ideaology that promotes the race over others. Socialist ideaologies, on the other hand, are internationalist; that is, socialists promote the global proletariat as a class fighting against the global elite. Additionally, the Nazis very much privatized the country - not nationalize it (outside of World War 2, where almost all nations nationalized some part of industry). Don't Communist Countries Have Famines? Yes, many famines occured in the Ukraine and other leftist states. However, the same happened under capitalism - and even happens to this day. The Bengali and Irish famines are famous mass deaths under capitalist and imperialist regimes, and often were made worse by the governments in power. One can even point to the large-scale poverty in African nations as an extention of colonialism, as the nations there have been reduced to being exporters of raw resources to the West. "African diamond mines" are a common phrase, and oftentimes these unstable countries are unstable because various rulers seek to make money off the resources they are fighting for. France still makes it so its former colonies pay France a debt from "development under our rule"! Are those, then, not deaths because of capitalism? Are those starvations not because of profits? Dehydration not being capitalism's fault, when Nestle owns the local water well and charges for use? I hope we can have a fruitful debate.

As a representative of the only truly leftist alliance in Orbis, may I mention that this strawman about Stalin is absurd. We ban Stalin and Mao supporters from our server. That's why communists aren't banned from Orbis the same way Nazism is - because the lefties here are very intolerant of pro-Stalin / pro-Mao speech, even as a "joke". At most you'll get pro-USSR memes and even that's contextual; meanwhile the Hitler memes have to always be backed by "but its just a joke" and only when presented to the public instead of just that server. That's also why I say ASM is the only truly leftist Orbis server - other "socialist" servers are known to be okay with Stalinists and Maoists, just to end up with fascists (no, not tankies - far-right fascists) in high positions. We disavow the tyrants who wore red, not praise them in jokes or otherwise. Also re: the 60-100m number cited by The Black Book of Communism has been disavowed by even its author, and fails to compare said number to what you can call the deaths under capitalist governments (at least under the same metrics as communism) - and hell, it even includes the deaths of Nazis ("National Socialists" b/c gotta love false branding) as deaths by Communists and deaths of Communists.

Best Alliance Theme: Carthago [Delenda Est!] Best Alliance Page: Rose Best Alliance Discord: TKR (Loved the Among Us games with y'all) Best Gaming Crew: TKR (See above) Best Business (news outlets, banks, graphic design companies, etc): RON Best Community Contributor: @Adrienne (You're doing the award posts, sooo) Nicest Player: @Redarmy Biggest Controversy: The very recent Weebunism stuff Biggest Meme: Pheonyx's talks about GW16 Funniest Event: The advertisement warfare of GW16

Worst Alliance Leader: Dwight Schrute Best Government Member (not a leader): Valkyrie Akuryo Best General Member: Redarmy Poster You Most Love to Hate: Pheonyx Best Raider: Isjaki Player You’re Pretty Sure will be Playing in 2050: Redarmy [again]

Best Alliance for New Players: Rose Most Honorable Alliance: The Knights Radiant Most Immoral Alliance: The Black Death Biggest Warmongers: The Fighting Pacifists Biggest Alliance Decline: Schrute Farms :c Most Likely to be Rolled in 2021: Weebunism Best Bloc (can be a bloc that disbanded this year): [Under assumption I can't vote my own bloc] Hedge