BrythonLexi
-
Posts
238 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by BrythonLexi
-
-
18 minutes ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:
[A lot of stuff]
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.
-
1
-
2
-
5 minutes ago, Thalmor said:
Thanks fam.
I'm always been right wing. Had a spout as a Libertarian before swinging hard right. Still kinda am there but recently I've started listening to a writer named Michael Malice who's an anarchist and his presentation and arguments for anarchism have been beautiful, simple, and compelling for me (he does a lot of podcasts and guest speaking on other shows and such).
Thanks for making the thread. This community is very much capable of decent conversations contrary to what you've seen thus far on other boards.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, The Oceanic Council said:
We don't have to have these states, we have examples of working class power through out history without having to cede ground to brutal regimes. Throughout history we have glimpses, the Paris Commune, the Russian revolution, the revolutionary upheavals of the 60-70s, the revolutions that tore the Eastern bloc apart and more recently the Arab revolutions, many have reignited today and the many struggles since 2018, most not consciously communist and none had lasting success, but it is there that we find communism in an embryonic form . Not to mention countless examples throughout the struggle of the working class, through union militancy. We have yet to see a lasting example of it, but that isn't an issue, capitalism is still relatively young, and capitalism itself failed many times before it became the dominant form of society
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
-
1
-
-
Just now, Thalmor said:
Thanks for the info. Busy rn so I can't meditate on this and form a good response but I want to come back to this later.
Is anarchism not viable in your view? Government is what interferes with my life and goals more than anything. I think I could live a much more fulfilled and productive life without faceless bureaucrats telling me what I can and can't do while talking a sizable chunk of my income.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, Nukey6 said:
I’d hardly call Cuba a Communist paradise as much of its success comes from before it became communist. As for Vietnam, it has started becoming more accepting of free enterprise and the people’s lives have improved because of it.
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.
9 minutes ago, The Oceanic Council said:Largely agree, though the USSR, and associated states, was not leftist in any sense, and instead represented the collapse of worker's power into a different form of capitalism. It merely had support from mistaken sections of the left because the workers power, albeit brief, was genuine.
Socialism isn't some spectrum of how much the government intervenes in society and production, it is the ownership of the means of production by the working class. None of the "communist" countries are set up like that, instead either the state itself is the boss, or in countries such as Vietnam or Cuba, they eventually reintroduce the bosses. The "communism" of these countries merely means they aligned with the imperialism of the USSR over that of the US. And while yes the US did intervene in many if these countries, they often collapsed of their own doing, due to the crises of capitalism or lack of understanding of revolution (be it due to falsely believe in Stalinist or Maoist ideas, or being hostile to communist ideas because of the distortions by the "communist" states)
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.
-
7 minutes ago, Thalmor said:
Why are people fleeing California and New York (two states famous for a high tax burden and a more invasive government) en masse for places like Texas which has a reputation for smaller government and lighter taxes?
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!
-
2
-
-
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.
-
1
-
3
-
-
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.
-
1
-
4
-
2
-
-
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-
2
-
-
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 -
I've never met Stavros, but I hope their final rest is peaceful. Rest in peace.
-
3
-
-
Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=237003
Ruler Name: Hikikomori Shubham Sharma
Nature of Violation: Message titled "Yo Snowflake", text calling me "schizo", which is a derrogatory term towards people who have schizophrenia, and generally used as an insult towards people with mental illness in general.
QuoteFrom: Shubham Sharma Date: 01/01/2021 Friday 10:00 pm Block Communications
Found a good loot, schizo?
https://politicsandwar.com/inbox/message/id=6184342
Adding for the record that this is the same nation/person who was issued a warning for misgendering somebody else on the OWF. Clearly the warn has done nothing.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
I feel like its moreso that the current rules have to be enforced a lot more, though the idea of a more active moderation hand isn't the worst.
Hate speech is already against the rules, but we have nations able to drop homophobic and transphobic insults and only walk away with a warn. Stuff like that is only going to drive away minority groups from the game, and likely make this even more a 4chan cesspit without community and moderative intervention
-
4
-
-
4 minutes ago, Thalmor said:
People are waking up. We could be on the verge of a major political shakeup over the course of the Biden/Harris administration.
In contemporary times it will look like it started with the Trump/Pence administration and exploded in the Biden/Harris administration.
The historians will know it started long before that, when the people were no longer afforded stability and support after major crises.
-
1 minute ago, Corpsman said:
Indeed.
But again, maybe CotL should practice what they preach. (I am aware you arent CotL, but its just a perfect segway lol)Please don't use me for your argument. I refuse to have my words twisted to fit either side.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
4 minutes ago, Baron Shubham said:There are only two genders - male and (what Akuryo isn't)
That is *absolutely* below the belt. Even if she's fully in the wrong [I refuse to take sides], transphobia is completely uncalled for. Attack the behaviour, not the person!
3 minutes ago, Hime-sama said:So much filth in this thread.
Yeah, seriously. This is absurd
-
9
-
1
-
Just now, Redarmy said:
Odds on this thread being locked with in a couple hours.
I'll put all my cash on the lock!
-
Just now, Ragnarok8085 said:
You clearly haven't been playing this game long enough to understand how the community works, my dear.
Dude, this definitely falls under the category of OOC attacks. That's a whole nother level that is much more serious and has to be dealt with, one way or another.
-
1
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Ragnarok8085 said:
Stop crying about your feelings being hurt, if you don't like it, stay off the internet and go into your safe space in the closet
Okay, look.
While my feelings on this situation are... complex, given my friendship with the accused - to say they should just suck up what they feel is an OOC grievance is absolutely absurd and unacceptable.
Corpsman, i'm sorry this has happened to you, and I hope some sort of resolution can be made between you and all involved parties. As for the accused, this doesn't look... great, especially the comment about wanting Thalmor shot. I know we're leftists who often have... harsh words about the liberals and conservatives, but to extend such grievances personally - and especially behind peoples' backs, is not a good look. Apologies and a call to change would be in your best interests, I believe.
-
1
-
4
-
-
-
28 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:
i cant tell if a broken link is the joke, or if the gif was the joke. I think broken gif works in this context tho.
The gif was the joke (A large legion throwing javelins at a single enemy), but yea a broken gif is also a goodin
-
The only grudge any of us have is against you right now. I'm friends with a few Quack people for crying out loud. You're the only one not over GW16.
But okay, whatever. Literally nobody else cares about GW16 anymore - right now people are making FA moves for the next war when the NAP ends. Nobody knows who will fight whom, but we love war.
Maybe when/if you're ever in a high gov position, you'll know just how little OWF stuff matters. Didn't come up once in my aa's chat - we just had orders to mil up maybe 5 days in advance.
-
3
-
Yet Another Socialism Thread
in General Debate
Posted
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.