Navarro
Well-known member
Wasn't it on RPG.Net, as a setting for GURPS Infinite Worlds? I recall seeing something along that lines there.
The Nazi's socialist?
- Thread starter DirtbagLeft
- Start date
Wasn't it on RPG.Net, as a setting for GURPS Infinite Worlds? I recall seeing something along that lines there.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Yep, that was it.
Reality Rosa: A world where Communism works (GURPS Alt-Hist) | Tabletop Roleplaying Open
Reality Rosa "The greatest danger that I see in the present situation is that Germany may throw her lot in with the Bolsheviki..." -Lloyd George, British Prime Minister, 1918 "The abolition of the rule of capital, the realization of a socialist social order — this, and nothing less, is the...
forum.rpg.net
Basically, "whut if communism worked, and if it did, it would be AMAZING"
Not for example-infighting between a communist Germany and Russia, or fierce ideological wars between different socialist sects, or unrest in areas where socialism is imposed externally(apparently just a bit less support for communist parties), not any american isolationism or aggressive promotion of a different ideology, no economic stagnation.
Its literally "what if everything went splendidly for the communist movement".
Last edited by a moderator:
Navarro
Well-known member
You've gotta understand, to Dirtbag, "Socialism" is a utopian eschatonic fantasyland. No system that actually exists, has actually existed, or will actually exist in the future can ever meet his standards of "socialism".
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
I mean in theory, if you had the magical technology in Reality Rosa where stuff can literally be produced out of zero point energy or something-then yeah the capitalist system would be obsolete.
Call me if we get replicators, much less matter generation tech from the reservoirs of Planck energy I will be very excited.
Call me if we get replicators, much less matter generation tech from the reservoirs of Planck energy I will be very excited.
Navarro
Well-known member
You know, it's telling how Dirtbag claims to be arguing from evidence unlike us "brain dead retards", and I literally haven't seen a single piece of presented evidence from him, but rather quibbling over definitions mixed with repetitions of his initial argument along with assertions of moral and intellectual superiority.
Last edited:
Floridaman
Well-known member
As the joke goes there are two places where socialism would work, heaven where they don’t need it, and hell where they already have it.
Floridaman
Well-known member
That’s what I find so annoying arguing with socialists, they almost always start from the belief that their views are self evident, and get upset when you refuse to consider their premises as unshakable truths. It is the same I see arguing with religious fanatics.
Navarro
Well-known member
He claims to be "arguing from evidence while you (degenerate reactionaries) argue from feels", and he hasn't presented a single shred of evidence for his claims! Guess the spirit of doublethink is alive and well in him.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
His idea of evidence, is entirely abstract and based on his emotional(feels) investment in his cause.
ShieldWife
Marchioness
While I agree with everybody, I’m starting to feel like we’re just dog-piling now. ☹️
It can be hard to argue when it’s just you against everybody else.
It can be hard to argue when it’s just you against everybody else.
Navarro
Well-known member
I mean, you lot aren't really engaging him.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
I'll bow out for the evening.
DirtbagLeft
Well-known member
Collectivization has a specific meaning within socialism. It does not mean contrary to popular myth State ownership. It in fact exist in contrast to state ownership.
So if the people who named it admit that they named it in spite of the system they established not being socialist then its still socialist. By your own logic democracy means fascist autocratic dictatorship. If you look at the number of self styled democracies and you compare them to the definitions as used by political science then they are fascist autocratic dictatorships. But that doesn't matter to you however. The democratic of congo is in fact a democratic republic and is more valid as a representation of democratic republics. Very very good to know.
Literally there is nothing that will change your mind. So your not rational. Rational individual are open to having their mind changed in the face of new evidence and there is no evidence which will change your mind. Allow me to give you an example. If it were demonstrable that personal property and public property within socialist literature were the same thing then I would change my mind.
[/quote]2) I also present evidence that socialists do claim that the USSR is socialist. So you are wrong twice.[/quote]remind me again which evidence? Cited source because I cannot seem to find it.
I am not ignoring it. I am pointing out that you are being either ignorant or contradictory. We can I hope both accept that socialism rejects private property. Some forms do accept limited public property so I can grant that. But the overwhelming majority of socialists accept the primary means of ownership as personal ownership and a good number reject public property. What I am asking is rather simple.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
This is the problem. You, an anarchistic socialist if I understand you correctly (also known by the terminology of the Marxist philosophy all this came from as being Communist), are attempting to impose your specific, ideologically purposed definitions, while the rest of the thread is trying to bash your face into the normal dictionary terms the general fucking public knows and how actual reality has implemented such concepts.
You are fundamentally refusing every form of socialism that holds a "statist" form where the state represents the people, which is born out by almost every revolutionary attempt ever made under the banner of "socialism" or "communism", including the Paris Commune in 1871, recognized by Karl Marx as a real example of implementing his philosophies, which itself forcefully took over Churches (officially limited to mandating they be open to the public during every cerimony, "un"officially they arrested most of the clergy) and operated as a representative democracy, rather than the anarchistic outcome you consider "true socialism", which is what Marx described as Communism.
In other words, you'll only change your mind if your own ideological literature disagrees with you, not if it can be substantiated that any socialist regime was actually carrying out an attempt at it properly following a strain of socialist philosophy, nor will you accept any argumentation from a different basis. You are saying that reality is not of importance to your ideology, and that the only way to argue with you is with the same ideology you hold.
It is not a slippery slope fallacy to say that the strongman "state socialism" will come to pass, because it has factually happened. It took less than three years from the October Revolution overthrowing the representative provisional government, which itself took less than a year after overthrowing a feudal monarchy rather than a capitalist system, to the abolition of the electoral processes that held the upper-level management of Soviet Russia to a representative standard.
This is ideologically grounded in the previous extension of Vanguardism, where those farther along to Communism work to aid other uprisings, as doing so requires resources and manpower, and thus there must be a mandate to acquire those resources and manpower to enable effective assistance, to enable other uprisings, to enable global socialism, to then allow global communism. And at this point you're two small steps from Stalin by working upwards to try to figure out the means actually needed for the ends. When you don't do any of this work, you end up with the Paris Commune of 1871. Brutally destroyed by the non-overthrown regions and bogged down in trying to uphold the utopian ideology in the middle of armed warfare.
At a certain point, it is very firmly that you demand "true" socialism, as defined by you and perhaps some fifty-year-dead philosophers, and no amount of pointing out the logistical issues attempting to be answered that results in all the "fake" socialism convinces you otherwise.
Probably because you're a theoretician, a philosopher, not somebody dealing with implementation in reality on a regular basis that gives obstacles that need solutions within limited and somewhat certain means, like Lenin did. The man who oversaw the creation of the Soviet Union. The man who a major strain of socialism, specifically defined by rejecting Stalin's totalitarian strongman shit, is named after.
DirtbagLeft
Well-known member
This is actually... ridiculous. The definition I use is the definition which makes sense within the literature of those who hold the belief. This goes beyond the term socialism or politics in general. To do otherwise is nonsense. Trying to impose outside definitions to a topic any topic which contradict the definitions as used by those who actually hold and put forward a given view reduce ones ability to meaningfully talk about said topic.
Sort of. There is a reason why I didn't and won't at least in this thread push back too hard on North Korea being socialist (showing that I am willing to compromise). There is a conversation among socialists as to if statism is compatible with socialism at all. This conversation extends beyond a fringe group(tankies). Because of this I can and will put forward the argument as to why statism is not compatible with socialism. However if the individual I am talking to is not a socialist I will usually accept for the sake of the conversation that socialism is compatible with the existence of a state unless they are seriously interested in having that conversation. This is because it is contested within socialist circles and so there is a legitimate argument to be made either way until the case is resolved.
As to Marx. Most socialists are not Marxists. Socialism did not start with Marx. Socialism did not end with Marx. I am interested in the development of idea's in general so I start back as far as I can go and read forward. If you believe that Marx himself thought the Paris Commune was a real example of his philosophy being carried out then you have not read any of his own critiques.
And again I repeat I do not push back to hard against the idea that socialism can exist within a state for the reason that it is hotly debated among socialists (with Anarchists taking both sides). There is also a nuanced difference between Anarchism and Communism. see communism vs anarcho-syndicalism.
Allow me to make a parallel to demonstrate the problem as I see it. I could make the argument that Christians are cannibals. Historically speaking the Eucharist was seen as being the actual body and blood of Jesus. The two largest Christian organizations which make up 3/4 of all Christians hold to this view presently. 1/4 of the remaining 3/4ths also hold to this same view. Now when I am discussing with a protestant why their religion is wrong I could insist that they believe they are eating human flesh and drinking human blood. But this is to get lost in the weeds in a secondary conversation. Further and rightfully if I did so the protestant would think that I had no idea what I was talking about as I would be telling them that they hold to a doctrine which they know for a fact they do not hold to. Christianity is not a monolith and holds within it distinct competing contradictory views. The unifying principle of Christianity from atheo-Christianity, to Catholicism, to Baptist, to Mormon is 1) Yeshua was a good moral teacher, 2) The crucifixion was an act of virtue. After that you start getting into theist vs atheist, within theist tritheism, trinitarianism, modalism, etc. And that doesn't even touch on soteriology and it's numerous competing theories. But everyone Christian, non-christian, theist, atheist. Everyone can agree that if someone thinks that Yeshua was a bad moral teacher, and that the crucifixion was an act of moral degeneracy that person is not a Christian.
When I have people telling me "I don't care if the founders of the USSR admitted that the USSR was not socialist" why should I give any credence to anything they say. They are ideologically driven to stamp a label on the organization which the founders of that organization admitted the organization itself did not warrant because the workers did not own the means of production.
In other words, you'll only change your mind if your own ideological literature disagrees with you, not if it can be substantiated that any socialist regime was actually carrying out an attempt at it properly following a strain of socialist philosophy, nor will you accept any argumentation from a different basis. You are saying that reality is not of importance to your ideology, and that the only way to argue with you is with the same ideology you hold.
It is not a slippery slope fallacy to say that the strongman "state socialism" will come to pass, because it has factually happened. It took less than three years from the October Revolution overthrowing the representative provisional government, which itself took less than a year after overthrowing a feudal monarchy rather than a capitalist system, to the abolition of the electoral processes that held the upper-level management of Soviet Russia to a representative standard.
This is ideologically grounded in the previous extension of Vanguardism, where those farther along to Communism work to aid other uprisings, as doing so requires resources and manpower, and thus there must be a mandate to acquire those resources and manpower to enable effective assistance, to enable other uprisings, to enable global socialism, to then allow global communism. And at this point you're two small steps from Stalin by working upwards to try to figure out the means actually needed for the ends. When you don't do any of this work, you end up with the Paris Commune of 1871. Brutally destroyed by the non-overthrown regions and bogged down in trying to uphold the utopian ideology in the middle of armed warfare.
At a certain point, it is very firmly that you demand "true" socialism, as defined by you and perhaps some fifty-year-dead philosophers, and no amount of pointing out the logistical issues attempting to be answered that results in all the "fake" socialism convinces you otherwise.
Probably because you're a theoretician, a philosopher, not somebody dealing with implementation in reality on a regular basis that gives obstacles that need solutions within limited and somewhat certain means, like Lenin did. The man who oversaw the creation of the Soviet Union. The man who a major strain of socialism, specifically defined by rejecting Stalin's totalitarian strongman shit, is named after.
[/QUOTE]
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
@DirtbagLeft, if possible I'd like to see your actual quotes as well as the dates those men said that their countries were not socialist. First to quell the perception that people say they're making socialism, and then that it wasn't true socialism afterwards when it didn't work, and to help people see that it's not some out-of-context editing simply because it flies in the face of "common knowledge," which can sometimes be wrong.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Yeah, and that isn't even something socialism aims to achieve, just simply a redistribution of who owns the resources and the production thereof.
Navarro
Well-known member
It needs infinite resources to work though.
D
Deleted member 88
Guest
Which is impossible, given the second law of thermodynamics and entropy.