The Internationalist

Patrolling the Mojave Almost Makes You Wish For a Nuclear Winter.

On the contrary, my good friend. I don't think they are angry enough! After all, there are: bourgeoisie, revisionists, reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries, liberals, kulaks and Alex's inconsistent APIs to hate!

Everybody expects this... But nobody expect's the [Spanish] Inquisition!

This thread is as humorous as it is tragic.

Being coup'd is a sucky experience, I wish you luck in reforming your alliance.

If the hack work's the way I think it does, and based on what is in the spreadsheet in question, there (in my opinion) could be no other way for it to work, makes me wonder how many other gaping security holes there are in P&W. Also, has Alex patched this yet? I'd like to explain the security exploit, once it is safe to.

Yay for spreadsheets! (And I guess some progressive left stuff)

Congratulations RedArmy, and good luck! (Not that need it.)

I guess the first 5 times they tried to declare existence, it didn't work... Perhaps it's because they forgot all of the constituent parts to an alliance.

Noted, unfortunately when I submitted this to the other members of gov't they didn't proof read it.

First Issue (PDF Version for those with screen readers)

The GCB hasn't sent any communications to the MOSN, nor are we "friends". Until the whole fiasco began, I had no idea the MOSN even existed.

Not really, the Cultural Revolution was something established under Maoism, which is a subset of Leninism-Marxism.

Let's agree to disagree on this. Also I should mention that the Socialist transitional phase is an element of Classical Marxism and Leninism-Marxism, most modern AnComs don't believe in a transitional period, and believe in a direct revolution.

Almost all ideologies have a transition period, when the existing system is the antithesis of it.

I know this was a few pages ago, but I just wanted to congratulate Gabranth for being one of the only people on this thread for actually having at least 2 braincells to rub together. Throughout this thread people have made and defended against some very incorrect assertions and statements (many including a certain Union that forgot it's ideals long before it got off the ground), and you sir, have made some actual valid criticisms of Communism. The point about communist societies being crushed within years of establishment due to Terra Nullis is something that comes quite a bit when I (a libertarian socialist) debate with some of my An-Com friends. (Also the issue of efficient infrastructure maintenance comes up alot as well.)

The "See this mess of infighting, Arrgh! You did this, I hope your proud." war. In all cases they are tho.

Syndicalism IS the better solution. TBF uniting left-wingers or uniting right-wings is like herding cats, just imagine what unifying both would be like. (Seriously the left-wing and the right-wing don't want to be unified, they want to be right.)

Then what point are you making. The left is fractured and criticizes each other, the right is fractured and criticizes each other. Leftists can work together when the need arises (depending on the topic). While left unity is difficult to achieve an example of it working would be ANTIFA, people who range from Anarchists to Stalinists banded together. The main things that leftists reject about National Bolshevism its radical ethno-nationalism, and its authoritarian nature. (Well except for other authoritarian leftists, like Stalinists which don't have as much a problem with it). (Also internationalism isn't a 'liberal-bourgeois' idea. From Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin, they all acknowlaged that the revolution would have to be made global at some point. Stalin just wanted to establish Russia as a powerbase for the revolution in the beginning.)

What you are referring to is the authoritarian/libertarian split. It is present in right-wing politics too. This.

First of all, you are conflating liberals with leftists. Liberals => Slightly left => Everything I don't like is a Nazi. Leftists => Far left = Can actually tell the difference between conservatism ans Nazism. Secondly, At least with the leftist's I know, this is mostly unfounded. (My circle of leftists contains: Anarcho-Communists, Libetarian Socialists, Utopian Socialists, Lenin-Marxists, Trotskyists and regular Socialists, and they all seem to get on fine.) Thirdly, Trotskyism and Leninist-Marxism are conflicting ideologies, what do you expect. Forth(ly?), National Bolshevism has historically allied itself with Nazism, like in the 1930's where the German Communist Party (National Bolshevists) tried to ally the Nazis with The Soviet Union. Finally, yes there are two kinds of nationalism: Ethno-Nationalism and Civic-Nationalism. National Bolshevism most definitely fit into the former category. (To be honest, almost all kinds of nationalist ideology fit into the former category)

National Bolshevism combines radical Nationalism and Anti-Capitalist Rhetoric, what could possibly go wrong? Also, most leftist circles call National Bolshevists CommuNazis, and with good reason too.

Okay, I've just read through 7 pages of this thread and it is evident to me we need somebody who is a Communist, or something similar. First lets answer the OPs question, why is communism bad? First of all, communism is not a single ideology. There are multiple variations such as Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Classical Marxism and Leninism-Marxism. I am going to assume you are referring to Classical Marxism, since it is what most Communist ideologies are drawn from. Classical Marxism is being slowly outdated. The cornerstone of Marxism is the idea of a Worker-Peasant class (referred to as the Proletariat) being the larges, most predominant and most important class within a capitalist society. Massive changes to how agriculture and farming, coupled with the education systems of the first world has all but eliminated the peasant class in the first world. The automation of labor is slowly usurping the relevance of the worker/laborer as well. Classical Marxism's revolutionary theory has been proven wrong. Marx theorized that in a Capitalist system, the Proletariat would over throw the rich (Bourgeois) and establish a Communist Society. This has never happened in any capitalist society. All nations that have underwent a revolution toward Communism overthrew Feudalism not Capitalism (Russia, Cuba, China (sort of)). Marx's analysis of Feudalism (which used Dialectic Materialism) stated that a Feudal society could only give way to a Capitalist society. Evidently by the Communist revolutions of the world, this is again another fault in Marxism. Now onto other problems in this thread has encountered. Why the USSR, Cuba and China aren't Communist and why comparing this statement to the 'No True Scotsman' argument is wrong. First of all, Communism (unlike capitalism, which is a laze-fare economic system) is a written ideology, anything that varies from communist theory is simply not Communism. In order for any nation to be Communist it must have a collectively worker owned means of production. What does this mean? The workers from a factory must be able to control it directly (rather than it being controlled by a CEO, boss or owner). It is the same with farms and other agricultural industries. The USSR, China and Cuba never identified as Communist nations, but Socialist nations. (It's in the bloody title for Christ sakes: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). None of these countries ever had worker controlled means of productions. Modern China isn't even Socialist because of its free markets. Were the Nazis were Socialists? No, economically or socially. Socialist means that the means of production is controlled by the state (supposedly on behalf of the workers, but that a story for another time). While the Nazis did implement universal healthcare and nationalized some industries, they retained a great deal of Germany's private industries. Any system that retains private industry cannot be Socialist. Economically, the Nazis were closer to social democrats and extremely far right wing Socially. This why the political compass places them as center authoritarians. Now does the state exist in Communism? Classical Marxism: Yes, but it is small and non-intrusive. (Marx describes it as withering.) Lenin-Marxism: Yes, and it is a centralized state and has some authoritarian and un-Communist tendencies sometimes. Anarcho-Communism: No, and it is extremely decentralized. Council Communism: Yes, and it is also worker controlled and is decentralized too. Stalinism: Not actually communism, but a tyrannical dictatorship cleverly disguised as such. (The Means of production is state controlled, as is everything else.)