Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Mikhail Bakunin_sl said:
And then you get together again and beat his head in with a rock.
Click to expand...
How you gonna do that when the big cave man has already bought the favor of everyone else in the tribe by handing out large feasts, or strategic marriages of his daughters and sons to other power brokers in the community?

Yeah welcome to how armies start.

The tendency is for power to insulate itself. Its almost impossible to stop it without total revolution, which doesn't stop it so much as just alters whose hands are on the wheel.

Power exists to make itself more powerful. More centralized. More unified. Gaps in power are filled with power. Take away the state, and it will be replaced with gangs, which will arm themselves, and grow their power, until they become legitimate, new states. Take those away, it'll happen again.

Humans like organization and top down structure.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Log Wizard
<Gold Donor>
85,215
172,432
hodj_sl said:
Again, the entire point of nationalizing industries during a communist revolution and the subsequent communist domination is to give control over the mean of work to the workers.

This is the crux of why your ideology doesn't work, Mikhail. This is the reason it fails. No one is going to give the workers control over the means of the work. The workers who seize control will merely be the new elites. Why would they ever give that up? Even if all the workers rose up together to take over the factory, some of them would be leaders. Those leaders will insulate their power. They will try to keep MORE THAN THEIR SHARE.

So yes, it is a no true scotsman fallacy, and a special pleading fallacy.

The reason it fails every time its tried is because every time its tried, people are involved in seizing the power, and once they have it, they don't want to let it go.

Its the core flaw in the ideology. Its why the revolution always ends in a more CONSERVATIVE government, by the classic definitions. Once the status quo changes hands, the new status quo holders fight even harder to maintain the new status quo than the old ones did.
Click to expand...
Like I said, its a system that requires perfect people (total altruists) in perfect conditions (i.e. no external threats, no one will ever attack us)
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Mikhail Bakunin_sl said:
You can say "YEAH HUH" all you want. That does nothing to address the problem that if capital relations remain (and in all your examples, they absolutely did), the system you're talking about isn't socialist. Sorry, but that is absolutely a necessary condition.
Click to expand...
The only person saying NUH UH is you. I already showed how, for instance, Cambodia was in fact communist and socialist.

Your have a case of special pleading. It is you saying "NUH UH".

Just because you want socialism/communism to mean exclusively that the individual people working in a factory own all the factory and all the profits coming from it and anything less isn't socialism, doesn't make it so. You want to ignore the actual historical facts that groups like Cambodia's Khmer Rouge were directly following Marxist theory and Maoist ideals and claim that's irrelevant. Its not, and everyone else reading this debate can see that for what it is, and see what you're doing for what it is, which is trying to rewrite the definition of communism to this extremely narrow thing that nothing can fit.

Its dishonest intellectual baloney and everyone realizes it, even you.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,660
It's basically the Vanguard (*but done right) argument. No need to go bringing innocent Scotsmen into this. They've never been communist a day in their fucking lives. Just poor. And drunk.


That's just so many words to say less than nothing. I swear to Christ, even silence is better than that.
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
There is always exploitation in trade. We don't like in an utopia. It doesn't matter if you label it capatilist or socialist.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Also Mikhail, its extremely dishonest to claim Maoist China wasn't Communist, since Mao's little red book is top of the list of required reading for Communists after the Manifesto and Das Kapital.

They were all communist. Let's try that with National Socialists.

Oh, Hitler wasn't really a Nazi because National Socialism is about protecting your nation and Hitler didn't protect his nation, he destroyed it!

Its retard logic. And it doesn't work on anyone here, so stop trying it.
 
M

Mikhail Bakunin_sl

shitlord
2,199
1
Araysar_sl said:
I can't help but somehow believe that surviving external threats is kind of a major pre-requisite for a functioning system of governance.
Click to expand...
So this is an argument I encounter a lot. It's kind of a weird one because it basically resolves as a call for worldwide insurrectionist struggle. Now I happen to think that's in order (at least once there's sufficient momentum to ensure some kind of victory). But that's not your argument. Your argument is "well since shitty, repressive states have been moderately successful at warding off one another and crushing anything that look like too good of an example, there's no way for anything that isn't shitty and repressive to survive and therefore shitty and repressive are desirable traits."
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
No, being able to repel and defend your borders really is one of the primary requirements before you can label yourself a nation or a state.

If you can't even do that, you're not a successful nation.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Log Wizard
<Gold Donor>
85,215
172,432
Mikhail Bakunin_sl said:
So this is an argument I encounter a lot. It's kind of a weird one because it basically resolves as a call for worldwide insurrectionist struggle. Now I happen to think that's in order (at least once there's sufficient momentum to ensure some kind of victory). But that's not your argument. Your argument is "well since shitty, repressive states have been moderately successful at warding off one another and crushing anything that look like too good of an example, there's no way for anything that isn't shitty and repressive to survive and therefore shitty and repressive are desirable traits."
Click to expand...
In turn it seems that your argument is then "Well Communism can't work in a shitty world. Communist cant work until EVERYONE is nice to each other"

And that's just not a real world anyone lives in, or has lived in.
 
M

Mikhail Bakunin_sl

shitlord
2,199
1
hodj_sl said:
Again, the entire point of nationalizing industries during a communist revolution and the subsequent communist domination is to give control over the mean of work to the workers.
Click to expand...
Nationalization and socialization aren't the same thing. By that logic a king that owns everything in country is an example of socialism. After all, the government controls everything, amirite?
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Log Wizard
<Gold Donor>
85,215
172,432
At this time I would like to point out I lived in Soviet Union for 11 years.

I had a lot of fun wearing the same pair of brown pants and same sweater for a whole year, dodging land mines in the forest and having potatoes 5x a week for dinner.
 
M

Mikhail Bakunin_sl

shitlord
2,199
1
hodj_sl said:
How you gonna do that when the big cave man has already bought the favor of everyone else in the tribe by handing out large feasts, or strategic marriages of his daughters and sons to other power brokers in the community?
Click to expand...
Oh, you've gotta kill all the power brokers too. Hierarchy is a weed. It's not like there's some final state that's "done." That's not real. You have to create a culture supported by social institutions that do the upkeep of eliminating concentrations of power internally and externally. That job never ends.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Nationalization and socialization aren't the same thing.
Click to expand...
They are in the Revolution.

That's the entire point of the Revolution.

To return the means of production of goods and services to the workers, the proletariat.

The Revolution exists solely and exclusively to nationalize the means of production as step one in the process of moving from capitalism to socialism to communism. Its literally the plan, as written, by fucking Marx.
 
M

Mikhail Bakunin_sl

shitlord
2,199
1
hodj_sl said:
The only person saying NUH UH is you. I already showed how, for instance, Cambodia was in fact communist and socialist.
Click to expand...
You didn't show any such thing. You still haven't dealt with the problem of the necessary conditions of socialism. You can't because you're wrong and you're not smart enough to trick me.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Mikhail Bakunin_sl said:
Oh, you've gotta kill all the power brokers too.
Click to expand...
And now the communists are advocating for basically an unending bloodshed where each time someone rises to the top, everyone else pulls them down.

We saw that already Mikhail.

It was called the French Revolution. It didn't work out so great. And its also exactly why communist societies can't function. You can't just unendingly kill everyone until there's no one left.

Sure we get down to a universe where its literally just you, and then Communism will work. You'll have all the means of production, all the goods and services in the world.

Good luck running them all. Division of labor evolved for a reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.