Griping About Politics

[LostInTheMist]

Not sure this is gonna go well, but, let's take a shot at it.

I'm more or less done with politics. I got a degree in political science and I was one of the first volunteers for President Obama. I even met the man, shook his hand. There was something about him. I mean, I was devoted to him being elected even before I met him, but he just had a sort of personal magnetism about him. You could tell that he had been touched by destiny. You don't get to see that a lot. When he met us, we wanted him to be elected. When he left us, we would DIE to get him elected.

Fortunately, we didn't have to die. I managed to convince my family (one brother, one sister, one mother, one father) to vote for him in the primary over Hillary Clinton. It took some doing to get my Mom to do it, but Obama's speech in New Hampshire after losing, (now known as "The Yes We Can" speech) convinced my Dad, my sister, and my brother. I used a loophole in the television reservation rules at my college to reserve the television for twelve hours on election day, from 3 PM to 3 AM, on the theory that it might run long. Of course, it didn't, and Obama was elected.

I think we should have forced single-payer medicare through whie we had a filibuster-proof majority, but what we got in the end was pretty good, even if the Supreme Court is currently dismantling it. It helped me for 10 years, while I was considered an "independent contractor" by my various jobs, so insurance provided by the state was all I had. I am now a "core employee" which means I get employer health care starting as soon as the open season runs.

Okay... so griping about the system. I'm a far left Democrat. The Democrats who get elected, including Joe Biden are too conservative for me. I mean, if we want to lay all our cards on the table, I am a socialist. I recognize that communism doesn't work, because people are not selfless, but if I could have my way, I'd have the state take over every industry and service that is currently privatized, from shipping to health care. Because an efficient state is better at using its resources than a private company, and cheaper, since it's not for profit. This is why a credit union is vastly superior to a bank. A credit union will give you a better interest rate on a loan, and is more likely to give you a loan. My Mom's credit rating was perfect. No, literally, perfect. When she decided to expand her business (which would come to nothing, as she died shortly afterwards) our bank offered her a loan at 2% interest. Very respectable, given her credit rating. Our credit union offered her a loan at 0% interest.

Anyway, this post is for griping about government, local, county, state, or national if you want. I didn't do a very good job of kicking it off, but in this board, I imagine it won't take long for the griping to turn poisonous and the thread to be closed. Try to stay respecftul, pleases, if you can, and if you disagree with someone, accept that their experiences are different from yours.

I'm a socialist democrat, or a far-left democrat depending on how you view me. I am also an American where a two-party system dominates, and this is all I can be.

[GloomCookie]

I think a lot of Americans are fed up with the two party system. Even as a moderate Republican, I do get fed up with the bickering, the constant complaints, and the rivalry that has deadlocked far too many issues that a coalition style government could free up. Unfortunately, without a massive overhaul coming from the States, this likely won't happen since an amendment like this will never come from Congress, they stand to lose too much and don't want to shoot themselves in the foot.

[Galactic Druid]

I normally stay out of PROC, but saw your chat in the shoutbox and at least wanted to contribute a little. Not to echo Gloomy, but I am definitely fed up with the two-party system. I'd call myself a moderate, maybe a bit left leaning, especially when it comes to stuff like LGBT+ rights and healthcare (as someone who has spent the last year financially recovering from being the victim of a hit and run that was absolutely not my fault, I'll be the first to stand up and say out current system sucks), but there's a handful of opinions on the right I do agree with. The worst is on sites like Twitter or reddit, where nothing short of 100% commitment to a party gets you labeled as an enemy by both, and all the terms that come with it.

Unfortunely, it's just like Gloom said, nothing shy of a complete reform, but we have politicians and companies on both sides that have too much invested and far too much to lose to ever let that happen.

[Missy]

People aren't ready to recognize it, but the fact is, we live in a dominant party system and sustain all the shit that comes with it. The only way to fix it is to educate people on the subject, but then no one is listening and is too invested in the status quo to be able to see through the haze resting on their own nose.

[Forsaken]

You should try being a Conservative on a lot of forums! I have been banned simply for stating facts while others get away with flat out abusing me. I don't mind, the truth always comes out and I am vindicated as what I stated is proven even though what I stated was also supported by links and references. Which of course my opponent(s) will deny and cry out for more support whilst they make no attempt whatsoever to support their arguments. I am just supposed to believe them because they think they are righteous.

I actually don't donate to forums because of the way I have been treated many times over.

[Chulanowa]

People aren't ready to recognize it, but the fact is, we live in a dominant party system and sustain all the shit that comes with it. The only way to fix it is to educate people on the subject, but then no one is listening and is too invested in the status quo to be able to see through the haze resting on their own nose.

Honestly all the education in the world isn't going to fix the problems with how power is distributed in the US system. Whoever gets the plurality of votes gets the totality of power; our system is literally just the Pirate King election from Pirates of the Caribbean. Fixing this requires a constitutional amendment, which would have to, you know, pass by several layers of people who have the plurality of votes and thus the totality of power. Sounds likely.

You should try being a Conservative on a lot of forums! I have been banned simply for stating facts while others get away with flat out abusing me. I don't mind, the truth always comes out and I am vindicated as what I stated is proven even though what I stated was also supported by links and references. Which of course my opponent(s) will deny and cry out for more support whilst they make no attempt whatsoever to support their arguments. I am just supposed to believe them because they think they are righteous.

I actually don't donate to forums because of the way I have been treated many times over.

What are the facts you were simply stating that got you banned?

[TheGlyphstone]

We can't even claim to have a working two-party system anymore, to make matters worse. On one side we have the far-right bastion of religious extremists, bigots, and conspiracy theorists, where the handful of remaining 'moderates' are a lonely voice in the wind. On the other side we have a dysfunctional coalition of literally everyone else, from the left-wing firebrands like AOC and Bernie Sanders to the Republicans-in-all-but-name like Joe Manchin.

[Missy]

We can't even claim to have a working two-party system anymore, to make matters worse. On one side we have the far-right bastion of religious extremists, bigots, and conspiracy theorists, where the handful of remaining 'moderates' are a lonely voice in the wind. On the other side we have a dysfunctional coalition of literally everyone else, from the left-wing firebrands like AOC and Bernie Sanders to the Republicans-in-all-but-name like Joe Manchin.

Dominant Party System

[Forsaken]

Honestly all the education in the world isn't going to fix the problems with how power is distributed in the US system. Whoever gets the plurality of votes gets the totality of power; our system is literally just the Pirate King election from Pirates of the Caribbean. Fixing this requires a constitutional amendment, which would have to, you know, pass by several layers of people who have the plurality of votes and thus the totality of power. Sounds likely.

What are the facts you were simply stating that got you banned?

My understanding of this thread is that it's more about the discussion of politics than specifics of politics. So I won't go into anything here.

I will however share with you the story of the last time I got banned. I find it hilarious.

I used the commonly used term "Grammar Nazi" in my request thread,  Simply stating I'm not too hung up on grammar. I got a PM from the  forum Stasi asking me to remove it as it could be offensive to Holocaust survivors.

in the highly unlikely event that there was a Holocaust survivor on the role play forum I would suggest that they are mature enough and due to their experiences un phased by such a term.

I refused to bow down to such an over the top and ridiculous demand. It was a line in the sand moment.I explained my position stating I will not concede to their silliness I got banned.

[TheGlyphstone]

Nah see you have to call them 'Grammar White Patriots' now. They're an important right-wing voting demographic and insulting them by using the N word is bad. ;D

[Forsaken]

Nah see you have to call them 'Grammar White Patriots' now. They're an important right-wing voting demographic and insulting them by using the N word is bad. ;D

You have a point because the irony is you could still play WW2 German soldier x Jewish girl RP's on that site. I mean... not many German soldiers were actual Nazi party members but they still fought for the Nazis. Must be that "N" word!

[TheGlyphstone]

I'm not sure what that has to do with my semi-joking point, since we are talking about contemporary politics.

[Chulanowa]

My understanding of this thread is that it's more about the discussion of politics than specifics of politics. So I won't go into anything here.

I will however share with you the story of the last time I got banned. I find it hilarious.

I used the commonly used term "Grammar Nazi" in my request thread,  Simply stating I'm not too hung up on grammar. I got a PM from the  forum Stasi asking me to remove it as it could be offensive to Holocaust survivors.

in the highly unlikely event that there was a Holocaust survivor on the role play forum I would suggest that they are mature enough and due to their experiences un phased by such a term.

I refused to bow down to such an over the top and ridiculous demand. It was a line in the sand moment.I explained my position stating I will not concede to their silliness I got banned.

Well. Maybe consider there are settings on the dial between 0 and 11  ;D

[Forsaken]

Well. Maybe consider there are settings on the dial between 0 and 11  ;D

I'm very moderate overall. The problem is the Left see anyone with even slightly different views as a Nazi. *whispers* don't tell the Left that the Nazis were Socialists.....

[Notadrywall]

*whispers* don't tell the Left that the Nazis were Socialists.....

I'm amazed that this tired old myth still gets repeated.

[Forsaken]

I'm amazed that this tired old myth still gets repeated.

Yeah it's just part of their name...

[Notadrywall]

And "Democratic" is part of North Korea's name.

[TheGlyphstone]

It's quite common for most people to hold a self-image of being reasonable/moderate, in the same way everyone thinks they are driving the optimal speed on the interstate. But if a person refers to 'The Left' as some sort of monolithic hive mind entity, they're probably not anywhere near as moderate as they might see themself to be. The same goes for people who refer to 'The Right' as a unified bloc, though I don't see that nearly as often outside of the real extremist fringers that I already try to avoid interacting with. Anyone who can't or won't distinguish between people who disagree with them is also someone whose worldview is too narrow to consider the opinions of others.

And "Democratic" is part of North Korea's name.

That's usually my refrain to that nonsense as well. And if the Nazis were socialists, they wouldn't be putting socialists into the concentration camps with red triangle badges on their uniforms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badge

[Chulanowa]

I'm very moderate overall. The problem is the Left see anyone with even slightly different views as a Nazi. *whispers* don't tell the Left that the Nazis were Socialists.....

Well, while we're griping about politics, might as well swing on this.

First, a brief introduction; hello, I am Chulanowa, I am a socialist who trends strongly towards a Marxist-Leninist outlook. You know, good ol'-fashioned Communism; Vanguard party, Democratic Centralism, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, that sort of thing.

The Nazis - and many other National Socialists besides, it's not just for Germans - aren't socialists. They don't even meet the basic stance of all varieties of socialism, not even the goofy quasireligious 18th century Utopian socialisms. This is because the Nazis very ardently believed in private ownership of  the means of production and the total pursuit of profit from such.

Now, you will find Hitler railing against Capitalism. The thing is, this is Hitler we're talking about. Knowing what we all know about Hitler, why would he rail about Capitalism? If your first thought is "I dunno, probably blaming the Jews" ding ding ding, you're right!

To the view of Hitler, "The Jews" controlled capital. "The Jews" were the ones who used international finance to ruin Germany, "The Jews" were behind the socialists and the communists and the trade unions that were "bogging down German industry." As with most things involving this asshole, it was all a grand conspiracy by "The Jews." So his idea was to get rid of all the "Malign Jewish Influence" - get rid of the unions, get rid of the immigrants, get rid of the socialists and the communists and, of course get rid of the Jews how can we forget that part of the plan. And once that was accomplished, German wealth and prosperity and industry would all be back in the hands of the proud and pure German Aryan people. Well. Some of them at least, the ones who owned everything, since they have "proven themselves better" under the social Darwinist doctrines of National Socialism.

That was his notion of "socialism." It's plainly fucking bonkers, and has nothing to do with socialist ideology, beyond some looted and misapplied rhetoric.

Yeah it's just part of their name...

This is a starfish. It is neither a fish (it's not even a chordate) or a celestial ball of superheated magnetized plasma. It's called a starfish because it sometiems resembles a five-pointed heraldic design designated as a "star" and because it lives in water, like a fish.

[Forsaken]

Well, while we're griping about politics, might as well swing on this.

First, a brief introduction; hello, I am Chulanowa, I am a socialist who trends strongly towards a Marxist-Leninist outlook. You know, good ol'-fashioned Communism; Vanguard party, Democratic Centralism, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, that sort of thing.

The Nazis - and many other National Socialists besides, it's not just for Germans - aren't socialists. They don't even meet the basic stance of all varieties of socialism, not even the goofy quasireligious 18th century Utopian socialisms. This is because the Nazis very ardently believed in private ownership of  the means of production and the total pursuit of profit from such.

Now, you will find Hitler railing against Capitalism. The thing is, this is Hitler we're talking about. Knowing what we all know about Hitler, why would he rail about Capitalism? If your first thought is "I dunno, probably blaming the Jews" ding ding ding, you're right!

To the view of Hitler, "The Jews" controlled capital. "The Jews" were the ones who used international finance to ruin Germany, "The Jews" were behind the socialists and the communists and the trade unions that were "bogging down German industry." As with most things involving this asshole, it was all a grand conspiracy by "The Jews." So his idea was to get rid of all the "Malign Jewish Influence" - get rid of the unions, get rid of the immigrants, get rid of the socialists and the communists and, of course get rid of the Jews how can we forget that part of the plan. And once that was accomplished, German wealth and prosperity and industry would all be back in the hands of the proud and pure German Aryan people. Well. Some of them at least, the ones who owned everything, since they have "proven themselves better" under the social Darwinist doctrines of National Socialism.

That was his notion of "socialism." It's plainly fucking bonkers, and has nothing to do with socialist ideology, beyond some looted and misapplied rhetoric.



This is a starfish. It is neither a fish (it's not even a chordate) or a celestial ball of superheated magnetized plasma. It's called a starfish because it sometiems resembles a five-pointed heraldic design designated as a "star" and because it lives in water, like a fish.

I guess turbulent consider the Soviets to be Socialist either? And you'd also deny that Socialism has failed anywhere it has been tried because you would deny any of those countries were Socialist. And you'd also deny all the people killed due to Socialism because Socialism has never been tried anywhere. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

[Notadrywall]

The Soviets were Socialists, socialism hasn't 'failed' any more than any other system, and you should stop putting arguments into other people's mouths.

[Chulanowa]

I guess turbulent consider the Soviets to be Socialist either?

No, they were.

And you'd also deny that Socialism has failed anywhere it has been tried because you would deny any of those countries were Socialist.

Seems like it turned the Soviet Union from a feudal backwater into a leader in space exploration in roughly 50 years. Seems to have changed China from an occupied and divided land of warlords and peasants into the burgeoning economic power of the 21st century. Sure did a great job at liberating Cuba from Mafiosi and plantation slaveowners. Was even really effective at kicking  the shit out of the French and Americans and Chinese during all those invasions of Vietnam - and at deposing that idiot Pol Pot in Cambodia for a bonus prize.

Socialism is an ongoing process. Yeltsin seizing power and firing tank rounds at the Duma doesn't mean "SOCIALISM FAILED," it means an asshole did an asshole thing that set his own country back by forty fucking years.

And you'd also deny all the people killed due to Socialism

Depends. Are we talking about the Romanovs? No, and also fuck them, I'm glad they got shot.

Are we talking about all the imaginary babies that Stéphane Courtois dreamed up that "would have been born if not for communism" in that book he published in 1997? Then yes that's goofy shit.

because Socialism has never been tried anywhere. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Socialism's been tried in all sorts of places and is still ongoing in many. What you're looking for is "communism has never been tried." Which from a Marxist perspective is true, since Communism is a state reached after socialism, and by strict definition is global in scope.

[Forsaken]

The Soviets were Socialists, socialism hasn't 'failed' any more than any other system, and you should stop putting arguments into other people's mouths.

Then why is it always people from Socialist countries seeking to escape to Capitalist countries?

Oh sorry I forgot. Socialism has never been tried anywhere.

Thanks for the aggression too. It proves my point.

[Notadrywall]

They attempt to escape to *rich* countries. Nobody is trying to flee from Cuba to Haiti.

Oh sorry I forgot. Socialism has never been tried anywhere

This literally the opposite of what I said, I already told you to stop putting words in people's mouths.

Thanks for the aggression too. It proves my point

Glass houses.

[Forsaken]

Seems like it turned the Soviet Union from a feudal backwater into a leader in space exploration in roughly 50 years. Seems to have changed China from an occupied and divided land of warlords and peasants into the burgeoning economic power of the 21st century. Sure did a great job at liberating Cuba from Mafiosi and plantation slaveowners. Was even really effective at kicking  the shit out of the French and Americans and Chinese during all those invasions of Vietnam - and at deposing that idiot Pol Pot in Cambodia for a bonus prize.

Socialism is an ongoing process. Yeltsin seizing power and firing tank rounds at the Duma doesn't mean "SOCIALISM FAILED," it means an asshole did an asshole thing that set his own country back by forty fucking years.

Depends. Are we talking about the Romanovs? No, and also fuck them, I'm glad they got shot.

Are we talking about all the imaginary babies that Stéphane Courtois dreamed up that "would have been born if not for communism" in that book he published in 1997? Then yes that's goofy shit.

Socialism's been tried in all sorts of places and is still ongoing in many. What you're looking for is "communism has never been tried." Which from a Marxist perspective is true, since Communism is a state reached after socialism, and by strict definition is global in scope.

That had absolutely nothing to do with Socialism and everything to do with captured German technology and scientists.

Oh wow really? Seriously? I am talking about millions of Ukrainians being killed and starved to death by Russia. I am talking about millions killed in genocides committed by various Communist and Socialist zealots. But of course that is fine by you. Chances are if you were dropped in one of these Socialist hell holes you would be screaming for a ticket back home within minutes.

[Forsaken]

They attempt to escape to *rich* countries. Nobody is trying to flee from Cuba to Haiti.

This literally the opposite of what I said, I already told you to stop putting words in people's mouths.

Glass houses.

Then why do they to the shock and horror of the Left tend to vote against the Democrats because they have seen the horrors of Socialism first hand?

Keep denying. It is what the Left do. Deny, deny, deny.

Soon one of you will go crying to one of the Admins or Mods and I will receive a warning PM even though I have done nothing wrong other than disagree with you.

[Chulanowa]

That had absolutely nothing to do with Socialism and everything to do with captured German technology and scientists.

Oh wow really? Seriously? I am talking about millions of Ukrainians being killed and starved to death by Russia. I am talking about millions killed in genocides committed by various Communist and Socialist zealots. But of course that is fine by you. Chances are if you were dropped in one of these Socialist hell holes you would be screaming for a ticket back home within minutes.

Find that space between 0 and 11 dude.

[Notadrywall]

quote]Then why do they to the shock and horror of the Left tend to vote against the Democrats because they have seen the horrors of Socialism first hand?[/quote]

Could you try and restate what ever you're saying here coherently.

Keep denying. It is what the Left do. Deny, deny, deny.

.... I haven't denied anything. I get the feeling you're shadowboxing your own imagination and not even reading what I'm saying.

Soon one of you will go crying to one of the Admins or Mods and I will receive a warning PM even though I have done nothing wrong other than disagree with you.

You realise that you're literally making up things that haven't happened to get angry about, right?

[Forsaken]

quote]Then why do they to the shock and horror of the Left tend to vote against the Democrats because they have seen the horrors of Socialism first hand?

Could you try and restate what ever you're saying here coherently.

.... I haven't denied anything. I get the feeling you're shadowboxing your own imagination and not even reading what I'm saying.

You realise that you're literally making up things that haven't happened to get angry about, right?

What you are writing isn't worth reading. You realize that denying and saying that I am just making things up is just making you angry, right?

Anyway, if I have learned anything at all from all my years on forums is that you should never ever try and discuss anything with a Left Winger. Total waste of time. And before you get all pissy, you addressed me. I was just here discussing my experience on being Conservative on forums run by Left Wingers.

I wasn't here to have futile discussions with Left Wingers who deny and perform acrobatics to try and prove their points or wriggle out of what they have just said.

[Notadrywall]

Starting to suspect your negative experience being on forums is not *entirely* a result of being a conservative...

[Forsaken]

Starting to suspect your negative experience being on forums is not *entirely* a result of being a conservative...

Thanks for behaving the way that I was talking about. I know that will go way over your head.

[TheGlyphstone]

Starting to suspect your negative experience being on forums is not *entirely* a result of being a conservative...

There's a reason I think of myself as a 'European-style conservative' these days, and it's because behavior like this is the standard-issue playbook for the American variety - (again with the exception of Gloomcookie and Keelan, ghosts in the wind). I'm surprised your red flags didn't go up at the very first victim-complex complaint post about being banned for 'stating facts', considering the 'facts' most so-called conservatives mindlessly repeat are things like 'biological gender is a scientific truth', 'the 2020 election was fradulently stolen', or as seen here, 'Nazis were socialists'. I, like Charlie Brown, keep going to kick that football in hopes that maybe this time I'll find someone capable of acting like an adult in political debate, and the Lucy of reality keeps letting me down.

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.

So to get back on topic and stop feeding the troll, there's another of my gripes about politics - the complete collapse of anything resembling inter-partisan conversation. Siloing and echo chambers are very real dangers, to both sides of the equation. Much like religious cults (no coincidence here), people who venture outside their safe comfortable space full of ideological allies and face unrelenting hostility learn that it's safer and happier inside.

[Rinzler]

[Socialism] Seems to have changed China from an occupied and divided land of warlords and peasants into the burgeoning economic power of the 21st century.

Hmm. Yeah. Given the horrendous human rights abuses perpetrated by the CCP - the most egregious example being its treatment of the Uighurs - I'm not sure 'you gotta hand it to China'.

[Chulanowa]

Hmm. Yeah. Given the horrendous human rights abuses perpetrated by the CCP - the most egregious example being its treatment of the Uighurs - I'm not sure 'you gotta hand it to China'.

Funny enough, the two things don't cancel out. A country can both be commended for lifting a few billion people out of dirt-eating poverty while overcoming a fractured history of warlords and invaders, and censured for its human rights abuses.

[Rinzler]

Funny enough, the two things don't cancel out. A country can both be commended for lifting a few billion people out of dirt-eating poverty while overcoming a fractured history of warlords and invaders, and censured for its human rights abuses.

Fair enough. No doubt those numerous Uighurs who have been pressed into slave labour must find much to commend about China's economic performance too.

[TheGlyphstone]

The totalitarian police state wearing a red rubber Communist mask that is modern China should probably be in its own thread, rather than derailing the topic yet again.

[RedRose]

I feel like, maybe 10 15 years ago, China had bloomed beautifully. And now it's devolved.

[Chulanowa]

Fair enough. No doubt those numerous Uighurs who have been pressed into slave labour must find much to commend about China's economic performance too.

If you want me to address a straw man you have to give me a YouTube video of yourself in full costume singing "Follow The Yellow Brick Road."

Until then I'm just going to point out no one but you made the argument you're mad at.

[Rinzler]

If you want me to address a straw man you have to give me a YouTube video of yourself in full costume singing "Follow The Yellow Brick Road."

Until then I'm just going to point out no one but you made the argument you're mad at.

You held up China as a model of socialist economic success. I just pointed out one of the considerably less savoury aspects of that model. In fairness, I can understand why you'd have preferred it if I'd kept quiet about it.

[TheGlyphstone]

Now I'm curious, Chula - you say you identify as a Marxist/Leninist, but you're speaking very positively of Maoist China. I was under the strong impression, from other self-described Communists, that the two were not very compatible or friendly with each other.

[Forsaken]

Well, I got the warning PM for being conservative.

[Oniya]

No, you got the warning PM for being rude.

[Notadrywall]

You held up China as a model of socialist economic success. I just pointed out one of the considerably less savoury aspects of that model.

Having less savoury aspects in no way precludes something from being an example of a successful economic model. If it did, you would be forced to conclude that every model has failed and better things are impossible.

[Rinzler]

Having less savoury aspects in no way precludes something from being an example of a successful economic model. If it did, you would be forced to conclude that every model has failed and better things are impossible.

It's only successful in strictly monetary terms. As a specifically socialist model, in cannot be successful by virtue of incorporating ethnic minority forced labour. Either that, or it cannot be described as a socialist model.

[Notadrywall]

It's also wildly successful in terms of quality of life for its citizens.

As I said, if your standard for success is perfection, then all systems have categorically failed.

[Keelan]

It's also wildly successful in terms of quality of life for its citizens.

As I said, if your standard for success is perfection, then all systems have categorically failed.

I don't necessarily assume the argument is 'it's imperfect, ergo failure', rather that the flaws of the system - utilization of forced labor (and child labor, etc) - do not make for what one would call a 'successful' economic system.

[Rinzler]

It's also wildly successful in terms of quality of life for its citizens.

As I said, if your standard for success is perfection, then all systems have categorically failed.

I never said my standard of success is perfection. That's your invention. What I'm saying is that my standard of success for a socialist economic model - which is what Chula posited - is one which doesn't feature ethnic minority forced labour. And I'm quite sure you'd find the overwhelming majority of socialists would agree with this.

[Notadrywall]

Yes, a perfect socialist system would have no instances of forced labour (though it may still be accused of it.) However, if perfection is not your standard of success, then it's entirely possible to consider China a (qualified) success.

Remember that forced labour has been a feature of basically every system to date.

[Rinzler]

Right. Well. I think I'll bow out for the time being, otherwise Forsaken won't be the only one getting a warning for being rude. TTFN.

[Notadrywall]

That's fair, I can understand why you would have preferred I keep quiet.

[Missy]

It's also wildly successful in terms of quality of life for its citizens.

I suppose that depends on your definition of quality of life.

[Notadrywall]

Not really. By basically any metric,  China's quality of life has been consistently going up at impressive rate.

[Forsaken]

No, you got the warning PM for being rude.

If that were the case then the ones who instigated it and attacked me should have got warnings.

No. It's because I'm conservative.

[Chulanowa]

You held up China as a model of socialist economic success. I just pointed out one of the considerably less savoury aspects of that model. In fairness, I can understand why you'd have preferred it if I'd kept quiet about it.

And then I explained to you how two facts can both be true at the same time. For instance, "China lifted literally billions of people out of destitution through socialist policies" is a true statement, and "China has engaged in egregious over-reach and human rights abuses in Xinjiang in the name of fighting terrorism" is also a true statement. You quoted that so I have to assume you read it.

Now I'm curious, Chula - you say you identify as a Marxist/Leninist, but you're speaking very positively of Maoist China. I was under the strong impression, from other self-described Communists, that the two were not very compatible or friendly with each other.

Are you talking about Maoism as in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? Or as in the weird personality cult that formed around Mao? Or the Communist Party of China's Marxism-Leninism with Mao Zedong Thought (which is quite different from M-L-M)? Since we're talking about China, I'm guessing that one; in which case are you talking about MLwMZT before Mao's death, or after Deng Xiaoping's revisions? Or perhaps the new popular movement to re-revise it to return more to something of orthodox Marxism? (as was the nucleus of the Tianamen Square and Jasic Worker protests)

This shit gets complicated and to be truthful, is mostly over my head.

While I'm sure there's plenty of Marxist-Leninists who have animosity towards Mao Zedong Thought (especially the modern iteration, often denigrated as "Dengism") and vice-versa I... usually don't bother with factional fighting. I mean shitposting, yeah you bet, that's a time-honored intra-Marxist tradition. Criticism and debate on ideas, absolutely, that's core stuff. But actually being like "nooooo you have a book on your reading list I don't like! You don't accept this idea I consider orthodox, arrrgh!" stuff, nah, that's just wasted energy. Gains nothing.

Marxism is supposed to be scientific (or at least, as scientific as one can get with socioeconomic theory.) meaning that you collect data, examine your theory with the new data, and update the theory as needed to conform with the data gathered. Since obviously Karl Marx had a pretty limited worldview, and there's been a lot of brains applied to Marxism in the intervening 175 years, there's been a lot of data and thought and examination since "Capital." And since Lenin, since Stalin, since Mao, since Castro, since Hoxha, etc.

I see no reason to disparage the clear gains of China under a socialist model simply because that model does not perfectly conform to one that I cleave closer to. Every society is going to engage with socialism in a different way, according to the needs and history and traditions and conditions of that society.

[Chulanowa]

If that were the case then the ones who instigated it and attacked me should have got warnings.

No. It's because I'm conservative.

Let me lay it out for you. All pretensions aside, Elliquiy is a site where people come to write smut, mostly about their favorite Netflix Original Series. PRoC exists primarily as the site's grease trap, to keep "unpleasant" topics from floating out of the bilge and into other sections of the site.

What I'm getting at is that this is a fucking silly place, and the idea of trying to make yourself a righteous martyr of conservativism on the same site where people post Dr. Who inflation porn as roleplay promps is just goofy as hell.

So just take my advice and chill the hell out a bit, man.

[Oniya]

If that were the case then the ones who instigated it and attacked me should have got warnings.

No. It's because I'm conservative.

Seeing that most people don't make a public spectacle about being reminded to read the stickies, you have no data on which to base that assumption.

[Forsaken]

Let me lay it out for you. All pretensions aside, Elliquiy is a site where people come to write smut, mostly about their favorite Netflix Original Series. PRoC exists primarily as the site's grease trap, to keep "unpleasant" topics from floating out of the bilge and into other sections of the site.

What I'm getting at is that this is a fucking silly place, and the idea of trying to make yourself a righteous martyr of conservativism on the same site where people post Dr. Who inflation porn as roleplay promps is just goofy as hell.

So just take my advice and chill the hell out a bit, man.

I was and am chilled. I just don't take shit.

I do love how you and others are making assumptions about me and attacking me. Don't worry you all seem to be Left wingers so nothing will happen to you.

[Vekseid]

I was and am chilled. I just don't take shit.

You do talk a fucking lot of it. "Where was everyone else's warning PM!?"

...in private messages. There's a key word there.

Do you have any idea how often we get that?

I've been told to chill out for my own attitude at points.

I could have a hissy fit. Become so hostile I have to shut the site down because I can't convince the community to continue supporting it and am afraid at my complete lack of understanding of the site's legal situation.

Or I could just... chill out.



Seriously ask Chula how much he feels I respect his opinions.

You use language like this...

Keep denying. It is what the Left do. Deny, deny, deny.

...is this supposed to convince people?

It's just putting up an image of a person and arguing with the image, rather than with the person themselves. It doesn't convince anyone of much other than painting yourself as an ass.

I'm very moderate overall.

Yet looking through your posts here you only complain about 'the Left', so you should probably understand people are skeptical of what you say in this regard.

[TheGlyphstone]

And then I explained to you how two facts can both be true at the same time. For instance, "China lifted literally billions of people out of destitution through socialist policies" is a true statement, and "China has engaged in egregious over-reach and human rights abuses in Xinjiang in the name of fighting terrorism" is also a true statement. You quoted that so I have to assume you read it.

Are you talking about Maoism as in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? Or as in the weird personality cult that formed around Mao? Or the Communist Party of China's Marxism-Leninism with Mao Zedong Thought (which is quite different from M-L-M)? Since we're talking about China, I'm guessing that one; in which case are you talking about MLwMZT before Mao's death, or after Deng Xiaoping's revisions? Or perhaps the new popular movement to re-revise it to return more to something of orthodox Marxism? (as was the nucleus of the Tianamen Square and Jasic Worker protests)

This shit gets complicated and to be truthful, is mostly over my head.

While I'm sure there's plenty of Marxist-Leninists who have animosity towards Mao Zedong Thought (especially the modern iteration, often denigrated as "Dengism") and vice-versa I... usually don't bother with factional fighting. I mean shitposting, yeah you bet, that's a time-honored intra-Marxist tradition. Criticism and debate on ideas, absolutely, that's core stuff. But actually being like "nooooo you have a book on your reading list I don't like! You don't accept this idea I consider orthodox, arrrgh!" stuff, nah, that's just wasted energy. Gains nothing.

Marxism is supposed to be scientific (or at least, as scientific as one can get with socioeconomic theory.) meaning that you collect data, examine your theory with the new data, and update the theory as needed to conform with the data gathered. Since obviously Karl Marx had a pretty limited worldview, and there's been a lot of brains applied to Marxism in the intervening 175 years, there's been a lot of data and thought and examination since "Capital." And since Lenin, since Stalin, since Mao, since Castro, since Hoxha, etc.

I see no reason to disparage the clear gains of China under a socialist model simply because that model does not perfectly conform to one that I cleave closer to. Every society is going to engage with socialism in a different way, according to the needs and history and traditions and conditions of that society.

It sounds like the other thing I was told is right at least- put five Communists in a room and you'll get seven answers to what Communism is. :-)

If it helps any, the definition I had in my head from that long-ago conversation was that "Maoist/Stalinist" ideals were essentially pro-authoritarian, that a revolutionary minority forcibly imposing a socialist state and concentrating all power into a small group was a good and necessary step along the road to communism. Meanwhile "Marxism" held to the opposite, that a successful socialist uprising needed willing mass support from the proletariat, and that concentrating the power simply created a new bourgeois/elite caste - in this case, the Communist Party/Chinese Communist Party itself - who would have no reason to relinquish their control.

I knew there would be an immense degree of nuance beyond that, but it was the surface level impression I had of the divide - whether the authoritarian, totalitarian states imposed by Stalin and Mao and carried forward into the police state of modern China were positive inevitabilities along or corrupt deviations from the road to communism.

[Forsaken]

You do talk a fucking lot of it. "Where was everyone else's warning PM!?"

...in private messages. There's a key word there.

Do you have any idea how often we get that?

I've been told to chill out for my own attitude at points.

I could have a hissy fit. Become so hostile I have to shut the site down because I can't convince the community to continue supporting it and am afraid at my complete lack of understanding of the site's legal situation.

Or I could just... chill out.



Seriously ask Chula how much he feels I respect his opinions.

You use language like this...

...is this supposed to convince people?

It's just putting up an image of a person and arguing with the image, rather than with the person themselves. It doesn't convince anyone of much other than painting yourself as an ass.

Yet looking through your posts here you only complain about 'the Left', so you should probably understand people are skeptical of what you say in this regard.

Hmmm look in the mirror.

[GloomCookie]

Hmmm look in the mirror.

Dude, chill. You're not the only conservative on this forum, but you're viciously attacking anyone you perceive as left leaning. I may not always get along with Vekseid and we have had disagreements in the past, but we're respectful and tolerant of each other. And believe me, I've said a lot of stupid shit here in PROC that Vekseid has taken issue with, but he has never attacked me personally. He will try and poke holes in my arguments, which is what a good debate is about. You seem focused on targeting people for their beliefs. Take a step back, breathe, calm down, and relax.

[Rinzler]

China has engaged in egregious over-reach and human rights abuses in Xinjiang in the name of fighting terrorism

Have to say that forced labour and forced sterilization is quite the novel way of fighting terrorism. Still, as you were.

[Chulanowa]

Have to say that forced labour and forced sterilization is quite the novel way of fighting terrorism. Still, as you were.

Thus the "egregious overreach" and "human rights abuses" part of my post(s).

Seriously ask Chula how much he feels I respect his opinions.

Giggling at the implication that I would have an answer other than "huh?"

[Rinzler]

Thus the "egregious overreach" and "human rights abuses" part of my post(s).

Which should've been enough. Yet you saw fit to add the 'in the name of fighting terrorism' part. Why did you do that?

[Vekseid]

I didn't get the impression Chula meant it to be exculpatory. That's just the dressing they place on it because if they called it 'Sinification' there would be no illusions about what it is, and it would taint every past 'Sinification' event accordingly.

[Chulanowa]

Which should've been enough. Yet you saw fit to add the 'in the name of fighting terrorism' part. Why did you do that?

Because that's the reasoning China is using for what they're doing.

What are you struggling with?

[Rinzler]

Because that's the reasoning China is using for what they're doing.

Do you think that reasoning is spurious or not?

What are you struggling with?

Not what you're struggling with, apparently.

[Chulanowa]

Do you think that reasoning is spurious or not?

Spurious? No, because in fact there have been quite a few terrorist attacks by various groups in Xinjiang. The Turkestan Islamic Party has also staged a few in the rest of China, and has even tried to conduct attacks as far afield as Norway.

I think China's response to this in Xinjiang has resulted in egregious overreach and human rights abuses, however.

Not what you're struggling with, apparently.

True, you're not having to deal with a constantly-hostile Brit who's working hard to misunderstand every word said to you.

My current struggle is that I'm using english to talk to a British person. Maybe I could try to transcribe a Dane farting through caramel pudding

[Chulanowa]

Mental note; make sure to actually delete the snarky response you type but don't want to post  XD

[Rinzler]

Calm down dude. This is, as you say, just a site where people come to write Dr Who sex stories.

Anyway, I'll let it go now, as you've thoroughly confirmed my suspicion that all that lies ahead for us is an impasse. And frankly, I also suspect the mods are hovering. Anyway, have a good day!

BTW, I wasn't being hostile, just wry and urbane like the proper chap I am.

[Oniya]

In case people were wondering - it turns out that Forsaken was a repeat offender who has been previously permabanned and has been attempting duplicates for 10 years.  It seems his sole purpose in life is to join ERP forums and make an ass of himself to get banned, claiming the 'Left' is out to get him. 

Be excellent to one another.

[Missy]

[Chulanowa]

In case people were wondering - it turns out that Forsaken was a repeat offender who has been previously permabanned and has been attempting duplicates for 10 years.  It seems his sole purpose in life is to join ERP forums and make an ass of himself to get banned, claiming the 'Left' is out to get him. 

Be excellent to one another.

That's some Wile E. Coyote shit

[TheGlyphstone]

Now that he's gone, Chula, did you miss my earlier question about clearing up my apparent misconceptions regarding Marxist/Maoist thought? I'm always interested in learning about other points of view on the world.

[GloomCookie]

In case people were wondering - it turns out that Forsaken was a repeat offender who has been previously permabanned and has been attempting duplicates for 10 years.  It seems his sole purpose in life is to join ERP forums and make an ass of himself to get banned, claiming the 'Left' is out to get him. 

Be excellent to one another.

Damn. I mean, I kinda figured it was something stupid like that. Anyway, carry on my peeps.

[Chulanowa]

It sounds like the other thing I was told is right at least- put five Communists in a room and you'll get seven answers to what Communism is. :-)

Everyone's pretty concrete on what "communism" is, the argument is mostly over what route to get there. 

If it helps any, the definition I had in my head from that long-ago conversation was that "Maoist/Stalinist" ideals were essentially pro-authoritarian, that a revolutionary minority forcibly imposing a socialist state and concentrating all power into a small group was a good and necessary step along the road to communism. Meanwhile "Marxism" held to the opposite, that a successful socialist uprising needed willing mass support from the proletariat, and that concentrating the power simply created a new bourgeois/elite caste - in this case, the Communist Party/Chinese Communist Party itself - who would have no reason to relinquish their control.

So, kind of sounds like you learned this stuff from an anarcho-communist. 

Lemme go point by point...

•  "Maoist/Stalinist" ideals were essentially pro-authoritarian No one outside cartoon villains is "pro-authoritarian." Especially since, as I mentioned in an earlier thread, "Authoritarianism" almost always means "when I dislike this particular exercise of authority." Marxism-Leninism simply recognizes the inevitability of "authoritarian" actions. You're not going to have a revolution without oppressing the bourgeoisie. That's "authoritarian." You're not going to rebuild after a revolution without people directing the project, which is going to involve turning down ideas that aren't going to work - which is "authoritarian." You're not going to preserve the revolution without suppressing reactionary elements seeking to undo the revolution, whether inside or out - that is also "authoritarian." Any organized society is dependent on exercise of authority, which gets labeled as "authoritarianism" when someone dislikes or disagrees with that use of authority. Like right now our lad Forsaken is probably on some right-wing forum calling Vekseid an "authoritarian" for banning him (again.) 

•  that a revolutionary minority This is an attempt at describing Vanguardism, and isn't, strictly speaking incorrect. Though the Bolsheviks certainly didn't invent the idea of the Vanguard Party (that appears to have been Kautsky), they are most famous for it, and since they succeeded, it's generally thought of as a Marxist-Leninist idea. Which fine by me, because it makes sense. The idea of a vanguard party is simply that a revolution needs leadership, people to organize, direct, and manage. And while yes this is usually going to be a self-selected group, there's two things to consider; one, you're probably not going to hold an election in the middle of a revolution, and two, you can't be a leader unless people decide to follow (ask Trotsky.) 

Personally speaking, it's my experience and involvement with Occupy Seattle that really knocks this idea home for me, and later seeing how the "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" went in the same city. Without informed and capable leadership, any movement - revolutionary or otherwise - ends up being a bunch of people shitting on the lawn and buying merch from grifters, who will be easily enough dispersed by enemies of the movement, leaving no lasting effect behind. The anarchist idea of spontaneous self-organization is as silly as the libertarian "invisible hand of the free market" and is mostly an excuse to not put in any of the necessary work (Which hey, it's hard and high-stress work organizing large groups of people, I don't really blame anyone for not wanting the job. I sure don't! Another lesson - not every socialist imagines themselves as the spearhead of revolution, lol) 

•  forcibly imposing a socialist state I mean like... yeah, that's what a socialist revolution does. That's why we say "revolution is inherently authoritarian," because it's literally one group (the proletariat - or perhaps peasantry, ideally both) imposing its will against another group's (the bourgeoisie) wishes. Even if you were to somehow elect your way into socialism, the bourgeoisie would not simply yield and cede their properties and power and influence, and instead would react with violence, necessitating a forcible revolution anyway. And for the record, this is why most socialists, not just Marxist-Leninists, snort and chuckle at the liberal obsession with electoralism as a panacea to the ills of the world.

• concentrating all power into a small group That's where power already resides. Except it's smaller, and absolutely unresponsive to the people it has power over. Again, more chuckling over electoralism. But more to the point, power isn't "all concentrated into a small group" under a socialist system. That's not to claim it's perfectly distributed either, but it is given a much broader spread than under a capitalist system. 

Back to China, just for an example that's applicable to most socialist states; do you have any notion of how Chinese elections work? You're probably aware that the President of China (who is currently, but not always, also the Chairman of the Communist Party of China) was elected by the National Peoples' Congress, which is, in terms of China's population, a pretty small group of people (2,977 people, still the largest legislative body in the world.) The National People's Congress is itself elected by peoples' congresses of China's provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions, e.g., the Guangdong People's Congress. The PC's of those regions are themselves elected by the peoples' congresses of the divisions below them (So Guangdong's Peoples' Congress is elected by the Peoples' Congresses of its 21 Prefectures; the Shenzhen Prefecture's People's Congress is elected by the Peoples' Congresses of its nine Districts, which are divided into even more subdistricts, which then hold direct elections to send to the district PC.)

Now obviously a member of the National Peoples' Congress does have more power than some guy selling noodles out of a closet in Yantian. Power is not distributed evenly. But that power is acquired through a long career of proving yourself capable to the people you're a representative for, over multiple tiers of administration. It's literally a system designed to reward service to the governed.

Does it function perfectly? Of course not, any system that's run by people is going to have all the flaws that come with those people. But it does in fact 'grind finer" than much of its competition - a thug like Donald Trump would never be considered for a county election, much less work his way up the ranks to be a serious contender for the presidency in China. but in the US all he has to do is host a TV show, throw money into ad campaigns, and then get a 0.01 plurality of the national vote

So while power is unequally distributed, this is because more power is progressively given in trust over several stages of representative democracy - people elected by people who are elected by people who are elected by the people. And in China's particular case, I'm pretty certain that it'd have to be this way - can you imagine a direct democracy of one and a half billion people?!

•  good and necessary step along the road to communism Well all taken together, yes. Basically all of this amounts to "there needs to be strong organization." And if that applies to painting a wall mural then it absolutely applies to a revolutionary reordering of society.

•  Meanwhile "Marxism" held to the opposite This is where I start to get the notion your buddy's running on some AnCom fuel. Marxist theory isn't contrary to Marxism-Leninism. That's why it's called Marxism-Leninism. Marxism is foundational. The difference is that Marxism-Leninism incorporates eighty more years of thought and experience onto that foundation. The main distinction between foundational Marxist theory and Marxism-Leninism is that Marx didn't really talk of anything like vanguardism, and instead wrote in broader, general strokes - that is he posited that there would be a proletarian uprising under fully-developed capitalism, but didn't try to lay out the form it would or should take. Just that it was an inevitable outcome of capitalism. Sort of like how Mao Zedong Thought is mostly an incorporation of agrarianism onto the idea of a proletarian revolution with a vanguard. 

•  that a successful socialist uprising needed willing mass support from the proletariat Well that's just common sense. Of course a successful socialist revolution needs popular support. This isn't any sort of point of contention, except if one assumes that there could never be popular support for a different model of socialism. Which would be a really goofy thing to claim.

•  and that concentrating the power simply created a new bourgeois/elite caste Well as noted, centralizing power is actually rather essential to management of societies and as a rule of thumb, the larger a society is, the more centralization is needed for it to function. Even our anarcho-communist friends understand this, though they'll never use terms like "hierarchy" or "authority" or "power" (instead preferring terms like "structures" and "influence" and "leadership," to describe exactly the same goddamned things). The idea of communism is reaching a point where that's no longer the rule, where society can function more or less autonomously, or at least with a minimal of central authority. Of course getting to that point - essentially functional anarchism - is bound to be a bumpy road (think of what a mess the transition from feudalism to capitalism was.)

• in this case, the Communist Party/Chinese Communist Party itself - who would have no reason to relinquish their control. This becomes a pretty strange argument when you think about it. First off, what's the timetable, exactly, for the party to "relinquish control?" Second, what does the party have control over, and how much, really. And third... if that were the goal, then why fucking bother with socialism at all?

That last point's actually a big one. Let's consider the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Even by Marxist-Leninist standards, North Korea is, er... strict. Almost to parody levels. It's not entirely undemocratic, but it's also not very democratic at all. The reasoning given for this tight-fistedness given by the Worker's Party of Korea is mostly due to the unresolved war with the south, the global superpower that has clearly chosen a side, and the fact that China is, at best, an unreliable ally. Now I dunno how much stock should be put into  that reasoning, relative to the level of repressiveness evident in North Korea... but I do know that whenever north and south Korea start talking about thawing relations, the US steps in to scuttle the effort... so I don't think NK's reasoning is entirely baseless. 

But the thing is, if Kim Jong Un and his politburo simply wanted to hold absolute power, for the sake of having absolute power and enriching themselves at every Korean's expense... they could just swing to capitalism and do it much easier, with far less risk, and vastly more personal gain. They wouldn't have to cede a drop of power - in fact they could entirely abolish all vestiges of democracy and rule as absolute monarchs, so long as they let BHP Group Limited mow down all their mountains for the mineral resources in there. Look at the al-Sauds, repressive absolutist monarchs living in luxury beyond most imagining, the precious pocket princes of most world powers, free to saw apart dissidents as they like without any more  than a mild harrumph from the liberal capitalist states they've aligned with. instead Kim appears to live a life of luxury enjoyed by the average upper-middle class American. Which is better than many, and most in his nation, but not exactly a pinnacle of opulence.

Honestly in many regards "they want power for power's sake" is a mindset of liberalism more than socialism. Liberalism is heavily hyperindividualist, so the idea of anyone having any positions or status above you is abhorrent, and the idea of actually trusting someone to have such power, willingly granting it to them, is genuinely absurd to liberal ideology. The whole point of liberalism is self-elevation over others, so the idea of seeking power for no reason other than to dominate others and achieve that station, and catapulting it to dominate even more people for even higher status  makes sense, and is what most liberals seek power for. The notion of a person seeking power because they genuinely want to improve peoples' lives is seen as quaint at best, or utterly alien more often - unless there's a follow-up of "but they were wrong, nothing can actually improve!" or "they were lying and actually had an evil nefarious plan all along!"
 

I knew there would be an immense degree of nuance beyond that, but it was the surface level impression I had of the divide - whether the authoritarian, totalitarian states imposed by Stalin and Mao and carried forward into the police state of modern China were positive inevitabilities along or corrupt deviations from the road to communism.

The "road to communism" is still uncharted. It's going to be a lot of advances and setbacks, and in truth, I'm not sure if any current socialist state is going to be "the guy." But I do think they're trying, and I think there's a lot to learn from for future attempts, as I said before. I mentioned the transition from feudalism to capitalism, and really, that whole process took roughly 500 years, and may in fact not even be fully realized. Why would the transition from Capitalism to socialism happen in less than a century?

I also wouldn't use phrases like "Positive inevitable" or "corrupt deviations." 

[TheGlyphstone]

The reason I asked was because this person also called himself a Marxist. Breaking up my paraphrasing into isolated soundbites has actually made me a little more confused than I was, but I appreciate you taking the time and effort regardless.

[Chulanowa]

The reason I asked was because this person also called himself a Marxist. Breaking up my paraphrasing into isolated soundbites has actually made me a little more confused than I was, but I appreciate you taking the time and effort regardless.

Sorry!

Did he also tell you we're prone to pedantry? :D It's true, it's all true, oh the shame!

[TheGlyphstone]

That's sort of what I was alluding to with the mention of five communists having seven different ideas of the 'right' way to achieve Communism - along with stuff like the Scottish Communist Party being a splinter offshoot of the Communist Party of Britain, which was a descendant/offshoot of the Communist Party of Great Britain. Y'all seem to have ideological schisms at the drop of a hat, which is why I found it plausible that one 'Marxist' could view secret police, re-education camps, collective responsibility, and Tiananmen Square as regrettable but necessary eggs to break while making the metaphorical omelette of socialism, while another 'Marxist' could see a society where 'Communist Party Members' have special privileges and higher standards of living than the average citizen, believe it was no different than a society where 'capitalists' have special privileges and higher standards of living than the average citizen, and conclude that the data showed this approach wasn't working.

[TheGlyphstone]

But if there's a multi headed No True Scotsman thing here where everyone says they're the actual Marxists and the rest are anarcho-commies, Maoists, tankies, etc., then I guess I'll never be entirely clear.

[Humble Scribe]

I remain completely unconvinced about how socialist that e.g. modern China and Vietnam are, and citing them as socialist success stories disguises the extent to which they abandoned socialist economic models in the 1980s. The fact that the ruling parties still call themselves 'communist' is misleading. They are both barely even socialist market economies these days. Deng Xiaoping and his friends, after all, invented the obscuritan phrase "socialism with Chinese characteristics" [those characteristics chiefly being 'making money'] and said "it is glorious to become rich". Even when I first visited Beijing back in 1994, everyone seemed to know the phrase "hallo, one dollar" for all of the tat they tried to sell you - including copies of the Little Red Book. Thirty years on, both China and Vietnam are thoroughly capitalist economies, albeit with high levels of state intervention in some strategic industries. But authoritarian capitalism is a well-trodden path for success - look at Singapore or the Arab Gulf, or indeed South Korea prior to 1987. I wouldn't want to live in those countries, as I value the ability to speak my mind, but it clearly works well enough for enough people for it to keep trucking along. 

"The country is poor therefore the leaders aren't in it for personal gain" is an interesting argument, but I don't buy that either. Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution replaced one parasitic class of corrupt oligarchs with another, and even if some of them were maybe originally in it for ideological reasons, most of Chavez' cronies seem to have been quite positively in it for what they could take for themselves. The Kims are a different kettle of fish, as they are in the Putin position that if they lost power they would be dog meat, probably quite literally, so keeping power becomes an end in itself. It's Game of Thrones with Korean Characteristics.

I was going to say that Chulanowa also seems to have a very generous view of Chinese domestic politics, but actually I don't think Chinese politics at its heart functions very differently from politics anywhere. Money, influence and ability all mix in the usual bearpit, it's just that the stakes are higher in authoritarian regimes as you may end up sent to a labour camp or shot as a profiteer (the modern equivalent of being denounced as a counter-revolutionary).