• Light/Dark
  • 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.

Socialism |OT| The Dawn of a Red Era

What tendency/ideology do you best align with?

  • Anarchism

    Votes: 125 12.0%

  • Marxism

    Votes: 86 8.2%

  • Marxism-Leninism

    Votes: 79 7.6%

  • Left Communism

    Votes: 19 1.8%

  • Democratic Socialism

    Votes: 423 40.6%

  • Social Democracy

    Votes: 238 22.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 73 7.0%
  • Total voters
    1,043
Reader mode
Acorn

Acorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,972
Scotland
Sibylus said:
Granted it isn't a 1:1 comparison, but what I'm relating is that Canada is very largely lock-stepped behind its neighbor in terms of security, trade, foreign aid, foreign deployments, and so on, because it has to be. Even if I was a nationalist, the reality is that short of simultaneous socialist revolutions acting in concert, there's no real path to a socialist Canada that breaks with an imperial America and surviving. We're in this together, even if we'd like not to be.


Fraternité!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure, but you guys are already substantially more progressive than America. You are no where near socialist and you're right that a socialist revolution would only survive with American support. But my point is your independence allows you to make choices that make life better than it would be if you were controlled by America. Right now whatever England wants, it gets just due to having more than 10 times our population, literally doesn't matter what we vote for.

Some gains is better than no gains or even regressing.
 
Masquerader

Masquerader

Banned
Nov 4, 2017
1,383
Deffers said:
If a free Rojava can be internationalist despite primarily focusing on the Kurds who live in Rojava, the same might be true of a United Ireland. One can hope, anyways.

After all, while socialism does intend to be international, barring the unlikely event of a total simultaneous revolution across the globe at the same time, the first truly socialist places in the world are going to find themselves hemmed in on all sides by arbitrary national borders. As long as you make sure, as you are doing, to remember the humanity of comrades left behind, you'll do just fine. You'll do even better still if you can find a way for them to contribute to your own goal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, I think there's a balance to be struck between international and regional Socialism (fuck, nearly said something else there). I just can't see there being a domino effect at all however, doubly so in Europe. If I seem ignorant about the idea of ignoring borders entirely, I'm really not, I'm just viewing this in stages. Believe me, open borders between countries is a bare minimum IMO.

Acorn said:
I might be wrong but I think the Welsh have been beginning to trend Tory for awhile. I definitely remember being shocked when the Welsh gave the Tories a number of seats in 2010.

It sucks for them but right now they have nowhere to go, if we got independence they'd actually have somewhere they could go to escape. One of the many problems we have with the UK govt is we need lots and lots of working age immigrants for the demographic timebomb of boomers retiring.

I'd welcome any of the English folk that wanted to come here post Indy.

At the end of the day, England consistently votes one way and we consistently vote another, at some point you've gotta try and save yourself. 5 million of us can't stop the tens of millions of Tories.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It WAS trending Tory a little more but Corbyn damn near got an absolute majority of votes in Wales in 2017, which was a pleasant surprise to me. Wales has voted for Labour for almost a whole fucking century now IIRC though I may be mistaken there.

And yes, hopefully we can become a good and viable option for disillusioned English folk who didn't want their home to descend into chaos en masse.
 
Sibylus

Sibylus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,728
Acorn said:
Sure, but you guys are already substantially more progressive than America. You are no where near socialist and you're right that a socialist revolution would only survive with American support. But my point is your independence allows you to make choices that make life better than it would be if you were controlled by America. Right now whatever England wants, it gets just due to have more than 10 times our population, literally doesn't matter what we vote for.

Some gains is better than no gains or even regressing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agreed on all counts. It could be worse, but I'm nonetheless also frustrated by the slow-rolling, foot shooting that the comparative gains in Canada experience. Can but see the masses on both sides of that line in the snow, when working together, shaking the continent.
 
Acorn

Acorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,972
Scotland
Sibylus said:
Agreed on all counts. It could be worse, but I'm nonetheless also frustrated by the slow-rolling, foot shooting that the comparative gains in Canada experience. Can but see the masses on both sides of that line in the snow, when working together, shaking the continent.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, I'm in agreement there. The only way a we'll ever get socialism is through internationalism.
 
Luminish

Luminish

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,508
Denver
For all the talk about how much further left other countries are, I don't really see that much movement from other countries. Sure, they put in more radical programs in the 60s and 70s, and didn't go through the rollbacks america had in the 80s and 90s, but I feel like everything everywhere was frozen in place by the 2000s and those other countries were just lucky to freeze in a better place.

Right now we seem to all share the leaning toward status quo, outside of gay marriage and weed legalization which basically went Nordic countries first, then some US states, then the rest of europe, then the rest of the US, with weed still stuck on step 2.
 
OP
OP
sphagnum

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
I decided to make a poll just for the heck of it, but the amount of options you can add are so limited that I had to go with broad categories. Socdem gets its own category as an olive branch to the liberals.
 

Deleted member 18360

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,844
Masquerader said:
Believe me, my dreams for a United Ireland involve no-one getting left behind. I suppose the passion I have for promoting independence from the UK IS inherently nationalist to an extent, though correct me if I'm wrong. I would just prefer a secular, internationalist, and just Ireland to be proud of, rather than getting stuck in the mess that is the UK right now. Hell, I know a few Kurdish people nearby who are sympathetic to the Irish Nationalist cause. I honestly hope we can succeed in the end. But it's a neverending struggle to ensure society is as good as it can be, so I hope to continue along that cause for the rest of my life.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I know that John Rawls gives priority to one's political community on matters like cosmpolitanism in immigration policy, though I don't know if he ever demonstrates exactly how he came to that conclusion. Other philosophers like David Miller argue for borders on the basis of a shared political culture, but my interpretation of that is as something like a base threshold, so that insofar as we make up a single political community, we have some way of conceptualizing this community to see ourselves in it and care for it (which I think still admits pluralism, China is an example of viciously pursuing this idea to excess.) And I think all of these activities or the erection of borders could be considered 'nationalistic', but arguably in a way that better actualizes the polity as a polity? This is to say that from an independence perspective I can imagine some kind of argument about how you don't meaningfully share the same political culture. But my reading into this topic is super cursory/basically off of sugar packets so take with grain of salt. Also Rawls and Miller were both liberals so maybe we shouldn't trust them (j/k).
 
Last edited:
Shy

Shy

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
18,520
brainchild said:
Just want to say bye to all of you wonderful leftists here.

I am done. I am so tired of the toxic atmosphere and disingenuous arguments on this forum outside of sub-forums like this one, and I'd rather put my time to better use. Cheers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why am i only just seeing this now ?

I understand, but wish you hadn't left.

Take care, and be safe. ❤️
 
Bonen no Max'd

Bonen no Max'd

Member
Oct 25, 2017
523
umop 3pisdn said:
I know that John Rawls gives priority to one's political community on matters like cosmpolitanism in immigration policy, though I don't know if he ever demonstrates exactly how he came to that conclusion. Other philosophers like David Miller argue for borders on the basis of a shared political culture, but my interpretation of that is as something like a base threshold, so that insofar as we make up a single political community, we have some way of conceptualizing this community to see ourselves in it and care for it (which I think still admits pluralism, China is an example of viciously pursuing this idea to excess.) And I think all of these activities or the erection of borders could be considered 'nationalistic', but arguably in a way that better actualizes the polity as a polity? This is to say that from an independence perspective I can imagine some kind of argument about how you don't meaningfully share the same political culture. But my reading into this topic is super cursory/basically off of sugar packets so take with grain of salt. Also Rawls and Miller were both liberals so maybe we shouldn't trust them (j/k).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I've never heard of david miller before (but I haven't even read much of the classic of political theory so not that surprising) but this sounds extremely my shit, gotta check this out when I have time
 
Bonen no Max'd

Bonen no Max'd

Member
Oct 25, 2017
523
I did try to read rawls a couple summers ago but it was unintelligible despite the fact that I knew the basics of the ideas so I decided to read future of the euro or something else instead
 
OP
OP
sphagnum

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
Eylos said:
marxist leninist englobes trotskyst, leninist, stalinist, titoism, maoist, castrism? or just stalinism?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

ML would include Stalinism, Castroism (to the extent that that can be considered separate), Maoism, etc. (although obviously some MLs would disagree with that last one), but not Leninism or Trotskyism - Lenin just considered himself a Marxist and Trotsky considered himself a Marxist and Leninist but not Marxist-Leninist.
 

Deleted member 721

User-requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,416
sphagnum said:
ML would include Stalinism, Castroism (to the extent that that can be considered separate), Maoism, etc. (although obviously some MLs would disagree with that last one), but not Leninism or Trotskyism - Lenin just considered himself a Marxist and Trotsky considered himself a Marxist and Leninist but not Marxist-Leninist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
to end my questions
the difference of soc dem and dem soc i think you are talking about the end of capitalism
so what you want to mean of marxism as category is a option to fit every marxist socialist option not listed, and the "other" option to non marxist non anarchists communists?
 
OP
OP
sphagnum

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
Eylos said:
to end my questions
the difference of soc dem and dem soc i think you are talking about the end of capitalism
so what you want to mean of marxism as category is a option to fit every marxist socialist option not listed, and the "other" option to non marxist non anarchists communists?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Basically, yes.
 
pigeon

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
also socialism that has national borders is obviously fake socialism, maybe it's social fascism or one of those other things
 

Deffers

Banned
Mar 4, 2018
2,402
pigeon said:
also socialism that has national borders is obviously fake socialism, maybe it's social fascism or one of those other things
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Barring simultaneous global revolution there's probably gonna be some national borders for a while. Even a socialist movement focused on getting socialism to happen in one country can still have an internationalist bent. And seeking independence from a colonial power can, while not socialist in and of itself, be part of a multi-step socialist program. Unifying a nation broken apart by an arbitrary imperialist decision can also be seen as, if not socialist in and of itself, noble within a socialist framework.
Let's not be so harsh as to imply that people who pursue those goals are social fascists.
 
Mekanos

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,163
Demsoc feels closest to my mentality. I guess I view it as the way to transition to full socialism with the least bloodshed.
 

Deffers

Banned
Mar 4, 2018
2,402
Mekanos said:
At least we don't have any MLs among us.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It turns out there were Marxist Leninist volunteers at Rojava. This leads me to believe that somehow it's only American MLs who are dogshit in the absence of a Stalin or Mao figure for them to lionize. Still wouldn't trust them in leadership positions, but it seems at least a few will ride or die.
 
Mekanos

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,163
Deffers said:
It turns out there were Marxist Leninist volunteers at Rojava. This leads me to believe that somehow it's only American MLs who are dogshit in the absence of a Stalin or Mao figure for them to lionize. Still wouldn't trust them in leadership positions, but it seems at least a few will ride or die.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm not gonna say I see a ML and say they're a tankie...

...but I'm thinking it.
 
Old_King_Coal

Old_King_Coal

Member
Nov 1, 2017
920
Not sure what to vote on the poll. I could argue myself for Marxist, Left Com or DemSoc. I'm not sure if revolution is or isn't possible. But if it is, then a strong working class will be key. So reforms within capitalism that make the working class stronger are the best thing to do in the meantime. So in practice I seek to do DemSoc reform, but I'm motivated by more LeftCom reasoning?
 
Boddy

Boddy

User Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,160
Went with Anarchism, although in praxis I would support most of these system if they happen to work out reasonably well.
 
Sibylus

Sibylus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,728
Kilrogg said:
Where is the ancap option?

Trolled you hard, huh? Feeling bamboozled yet?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
EFyXDwLX0AY3dmU.jpg
 

Deleted member 25600

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
5,701
Deffers said:
It turns out there were Marxist Leninist volunteers at Rojava. This leads me to believe that somehow it's only American MLs who are dogshit in the absence of a Stalin or Mao figure for them to lionize. Still wouldn't trust them in leadership positions, but it seems at least a few will ride or die.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I understand that there was a boatload of different ideologies at Rojava. ML, Trade-Unionists, Ancoms, and I think even some Anprims.

 
Masquerader

Masquerader

Banned
Nov 4, 2017
1,383
where the fuck is the poll option for whatever the hell Pol Pot was

umop 3pisdn said:
I know that John Rawls gives priority to one's political community on matters like cosmpolitanism in immigration policy, though I don't know if he ever demonstrates exactly how he came to that conclusion. Other philosophers like David Miller argue for borders on the basis of a shared political culture, but my interpretation of that is as something like a base threshold, so that insofar as we make up a single political community, we have some way of conceptualizing this community to see ourselves in it and care for it (which I think still admits pluralism, China is an example of viciously pursuing this idea to excess.) And I think all of these activities or the erection of borders could be considered 'nationalistic', but arguably in a way that better actualizes the polity as a polity? This is to say that from an independence perspective I can imagine some kind of argument about how you don't meaningfully share the same political culture. But my reading into this topic is super cursory/basically off of sugar packets so take with grain of salt. Also Rawls and Miller were both liberals so maybe we shouldn't trust them (j/k).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


... I have much to look into, seriously. XD But I believe that adequate education would help ensure that the excesses of Nationalism don't rise, when everyone actually has access to critical thinking. In an ideal society, history would be a mandatory subject for all levels of formative education. We just gotta avoid the dangers of losing control of the narrative to fascists.
 

Deleted member 1445

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,140
Bonen no Max'd said:
literacy and education is the backbone of the nation-building process. no mandatory public schooling, no nation!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Let's be clear though, the literacy and education that matter for a society is about voting, politics, society, psychology, communication, critical thinking, etc. What we have now as core curricula should be nothing more than electives, and doesn't do anything to keep a country stable in the long run.
 
pigeon

pigeon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,447
Masquerader said:
where the fuck is the poll option for whatever the hell Pol Pot was




... I have much to look into, seriously. XD But I believe that adequate education would help ensure that the excesses of Nationalism don't rise, when everyone actually has access to critical thinking. In an ideal society, history would be a mandatory subject for all levels of formative education. We just gotta avoid the dangers of losing control of the narrative to fascists.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

pol pot was a Maoist, and Maoism is discredited because of all the murders, so just choose Marxist Leninist
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.