I consider myself centre left, but ever since I started listening to the Revolutions podcast I've been feeling very... socialist curious. Will be watching this thread.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I don't believe the anti-racist and anti-imperial part. Lest we forget, the Soviets were an imperial power colonizing eastern europe, and were just as responsible as the US for ruining countries around the world.
Yep.
That's why i'm a very strong believer in a Universal Guaranteed Income tied to inflation (i'd still keep the minimum wage) that starts when you hit 18
I agree - once automation kicks into high gear, it's either UBI or dystopian future...
Yup, this is part of my motivation in terms of being borderline socialist.
The depressing thing is. Even without a greater degree of automation developing, it's still need.
I mean we're already living in a cyberpunk world, just without the pretty lights, if you wanna see the future, watch the new Blade Runner and enjoy the bleeding and dying corpse of a broken world, brought to you by Late Capitalism.
Thank you! Much appreciated.
Not really, no. I live in a country where people don't really understand what socialism and communism are but have a very strong HATRED of communists. They basically say everything they dislike is "communist". Modern art is communist, gender discussion is communist, teachers are communists, doctor degree is for leftists (?!) and so on. We have a national exam where one of the rules was to not disrespect human rights in the essay and yesterday the politicians canceled this rule. Also we now have rules for fuckin SLAVE LABOR, so basic human rights are not a priority here indeed.
I can't speak for all parts of the world but yes they are common in many different left areas in Germany. There's many different socialist and communist groups that vary in ideology, we have anti-revisionist minor political parties for example. Here is such one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist–Leninist_Party_of_Germany
Last edited:
They are vocal online but really they have no base in the movements apart from solidarity work around Syria which is heavily divided thanks to tankies. At least that's my experience in Australia.
We fought for the future destroyed the invaders. Well I mean not us literally, anyone from like the battle of berlin still alive? Anyway glad to be apart of the political ideology who's army led to Hitler's suicide.
A superb podcast. I can't wait till he catches up with the 20th century. The revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries provide so much context for those of the 20th. Invaluable listening.
That's too fucking good for them. Just shoot those cunts and leave them in a ditch.
God i wish i had the money to buy Wolfenstein 2
Yes. I think i can safely say, everyone here would love to see the Federation become a real thing.
We are all striving to build a future where we can kick it in space and wear dope onesie uniforms and walk around like this with fellow comrades
As someone who grew up in rather left household its gotta be Die Internationale
To Help you:
https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index
https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/about
Another music:
Since we are in a games forum, for that tankie moment, when you see nazis
OP
OP
This is a good post, wish we had options to like/react to them.
Theres also a lot of acceptance of Stalin in Russia and Georgia, obviously. I think Marxism-Leninism is primarily rejectes by western socialists while socialists elsewhere still take a lot of influence from its legacy (and from Maoism).
Thats true of course. Its a complex issue just like with the US, which has done a lot of work to promote democracy of the liberal type and human rights across the globe while also subverting both of them. Thats a big problem with states - they are propelled by their own self-propagation and therefore will contradict their own ideals to survive.
The USSR directed the CPUSA for example to push for civil rights for blacks, for example, and had its hands in various anticolonial struggles in the colonized countries. Of course thisbwas also for theie political benefit, but it still had material benefits. I think while they were definitely a predominately Russian empire at home, they were also an empire of a different sort than the traditional western empires - correct me if Im wrong but the USSR didnt tend to extract the capital and resources from states it had hegemonic power over but instead gave them pretty generous funds to try to build them in its own image. Which I guess might fit with the Maoist "social imperialism" claim?
But anyway, yeah, its a mixed bag. Still, its worth remembering thay during the Cold War half the world went red for a reason, and ilmany of thise countriea were explicitly fighting against western overlords with help from the Communist nations, however badly they did it.
For sure. It also had to be less about looking up to old regimes with all of their baggages, and it has to be left-libertarian rather than the authoritarian structures you usually see.
I heard from a history teacher that in fact USSR fucked east germany, instead of investing there like the US with the Marshall plan, they are pissed because of the War and took a bunch of resources, and didnt invested much there later.
But this is a Second hand info.
But this is a Second hand info.
OP
OP
I think they have their place but they have to know what it is instead of trying to be at the forefront. Im not a listener but it seemed good to me that they immediately backed down and donated money after the Cosby thing.
But yes, we have to make sure the liberal bekief that socialism is "a white thing" doesnt become true. Luckily our side has always been the side of oppressed peoples.
Che - dope as hell
Fidel - not dope
Surviving all those assassinations attempts is kinda dope tho
We can learn from them, but both were very problematic and shouldn't be looked up to.
You should read up on Che and the Cuban lgbt community (I'm on mobile so can't find relevant links)
OP
OP
Its an authoritarian state capitalist country. I was actually going to post about Xi Jinping Thought at some point today because they just enshrined it alongside Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Thought as part of their leading ideology, but it seems to me that XJT is Chinese imperialism/more authoritarian state capitalism disguising itself as a new phase of "socialism with Chinese characteristics". At least DXT had the NEP as a basis. However, Xi has promised to start focusing development in the overlooked western regions, so thats good, but I would think it will be mixed with Han nationalism.
Heres a quick overview of the main points of XJT:
https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/xi-jinping-thought-vs-deng-xiaoping-theory/
I would have liked to have seen what the New Left would have done if they had gotten into power over Xi.
Was there a point at which China was on the right track to implement socialism though? Or has the entire thing basically been compromised from the start, regardless of what the party line was?
Che - Cool, pure revolutionary
Fidel - Cool in some aspects, horrible in many others
China its a weird thing, i'm sincere when i say i dont understand them completely, i think its a mistake to say they are a just another regular capitalist state, since that part of the country is in a socialist model. For me its a Frankenstein and i dont understand what China long term goal is, and i dont understand their New ideology of that chinese phillosopher.
Also the censorship sucks
Fidel - Cool in some aspects, horrible in many others
China its a weird thing, i'm sincere when i say i dont understand them completely, i think its a mistake to say they are a just another regular capitalist state, since that part of the country is in a socialist model. For me its a Frankenstein and i dont understand what China long term goal is, and i dont understand their New ideology of that chinese phillosopher.
Also the censorship sucks
Based on what I know and have sort of experienced, at least of where things are at right now but this might have always been sort of the plan, its a vision of...nationalist feudalism? The end goal seems to be a wealthy prosperous China in which nearly all (Han) citizens are prosperous, in a state controlled by an elite who control most of the actual wealth (and as controllers of the state, all of the land people own houses on). The wish for China to elevate the quality of life of (again, Han) citizens is legitimate, and just as legitimately coupled with a desire to make sure there's still the guys on the top. I mean someone can correct any part of that that I've gotten wrong but that's what it feels like
I've also struggled with my thoughts on the role that violence plays in these sorts of movements. As a personal pacifist, I can never bring myself to condone the use of force, but I also understand that violence is a tool that can be used effectively, even though it often isn't.
Even liberals defended the use of force against opression and for revolutionary purposes, but since liberalism is in Power, to maintain the status quo, they demonize socialist revolutions and the use of violence for It. Imo.
Honestly the use of violence doesn't bother me particularly, especially as it relates to a lot of current oppression going on in the world. My issue with "violent revolutions" is really more cynicism about the revolution part of that equation, particularly in America
OP
OP
Im not as knowledgable about modern China as I am about the USSR, bur my sense of it is that the PRC was never properly socialist. There were workers councils in the 20s but Mao based most of his support on the peasantry due to the material conditions of the country and this ked to weird episodes where the Maoists would liberate a city from the nationalists only to get in fights with the proletariat inside. It doesnt really seem to fit with typical Marxist understandings of socialist revolution, thats for sure, but that would also require historical stageism to be an iron law of history and not merely a descriptive reading of historical events (with a Eurocentric bent).
If there were genuinely democratic councils electing the leaders of the CCP Im unaware of it but Im happy to be corrected.
Hello everyone! Awesome thread, sphagnum. Thanks! Don't how much I'll be able to contribute myself, to be honest, especially regarding the historical aspects. Despite my username. But I'm happy to learn from you people.
If anyone's interested in reading about the disastrous developments leading up to & following the recent elections here in Austria, allow me to plug an article by a friend of mine.
If anyone's interested in reading about the disastrous developments leading up to & following the recent elections here in Austria, allow me to plug an article by a friend of mine.
What are your thoughts on the concept of a "Divine Answer" type scenario? Not theologically divine but where you conclude that yours is the only true answer. When you 'know' your movement is the only true answer and that any suppression of opposition is justified?
It's a concept that I've heard about a few months ago and has stuck with me ever since. It's led to the fall of many revolutionary movements including that of the Jacobins during the French revolution.
I ask because I think it would be hard to be able to remove one's self when in the movement. But something that must be faced for any successful movement. And it can ultimately leave some almost petrified at the prospect.
Hope what I'm trying to explain makes any sense.
It's a concept that I've heard about a few months ago and has stuck with me ever since. It's led to the fall of many revolutionary movements including that of the Jacobins during the French revolution.
I ask because I think it would be hard to be able to remove one's self when in the movement. But something that must be faced for any successful movement. And it can ultimately leave some almost petrified at the prospect.
Hope what I'm trying to explain makes any sense.