[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / chat ] [ rp / fan ]

/chat/ - Chat

A general discussion board with a laxer atmosphere and fewer rules. Keep adult content or controversial issues here.
Name?

This field is optional. You can choose any name you want, or you can post anonymously by leaving this field empty.

Tripcodes are a way to identify yourself between posts without having to register with the site. To use a tripcode, enter your name as ‹name›#‹key›.You can choose anything you want as the key—it is private and will never be shown to other posters or stored on the server. For example:

Rarity#bestpony → Rarity!.4PK7yxdII

If you want a tripcode containing specific words, you can download a program designed to search for tripcodes, such as Tripcode Explorer.

Email?

Entering an e-mail is optional.

There are also code words you can enter here which perform certain actions when you submit your post.

  • sage — lets you post without bumping a thread.
  • nonoko — uses the original post behavior to redirect to the board index.

These can be used at the same time as an e-mail address by typing ‹email›#‹action›.

You can also use Skype names in place of an e-mail. The notation is the same as a link to a username on skype itself, which is skype:‹username›

Subject
Comment?
Giving emphasis
[b] Bold [/b] Ctrl + B
[i] Italic [/i] Ctrl + I
[u] Underlined [/u] Ctrl + U
[s] Strikethrough [/s] Ctrl + R
Hiding text
[?] Spoiler text [/?] Ctrl + S
[h] Hide block of text [/h] Ctrl + H
Special
[rcv] Royal Canterlot voice [/rcv] Ctrl + K
[shy] Fluttershy voice [/shy]
[cs] Comic Sans [/cs]
[tt] Monospaced [/tt]
[d20], [4d6] — Dice rolls
URLs and linking
Link to a post on the current board
>>1234
Link to another board
>>>/pony/
Link to a post on another board
>>>/pony/1234
Hypertext links
[url=https://www.ponychan.net/] Ponychan [/url]
File
Flags
Password?

This field is for editing and deletions.


Jan 20: Board Organization Discussion
Jan 15: Staff Update, and Rules Update

File: 1487333971615.jpg (118.46 KB, 1206x460, 107f2c464a6e01603f53ae0df923ec…)

Communists giving lectures about the Russian revolution. Mac !RevGiOKgRo 687247

https://www.wsws.org/en/special/1917/lectures.html

>The International Committee of the Fourth International is marking the centenary of the Russian Revolution with online lectures on the foundations, trajectory and consequences of the extraordinary events of 1917. The first series will begin on March 11 and continue biweekly until May 6. A second series will begin in September.


>The meetings will be streamed live on YouTube. Register for the lectures and follow the campaign on Facebook to get the latest lecture announcements, discounts on books, and other exclusive content.

Anonymous 687269

>>687251
>img

Wasn't it cucked literally a few years after the revolution?

687335

File: 1487349057186.jpg (72.04 KB, 500x452, factory worker slavery.jpg)

>>687269
I know right?

And other forms of successful AnCom have fallen prey to foreign military.

It turns out you can cuck it in the long run, but you must remove it to do so. But I suppose you can say thats true of just about every great society.

Still, think about it: once the proletariat controls how you gonna cuck them without basically enslaving them and forcing control away from them?

Reaver 687347

Not really sure how to feel about this, though at a time when there's some genuine nazi-ish types running around reviving communism isn't something bad.

Anonymous 687402

>>687335
Since when is Russian revolution an AnCom one?

The same way it was done literally everywhere in the world the first time around?

Reaver 687409

>>687402

To be fair it was pretty ancom in practice, the whole ´soviet´ thing literally means something like local council or gathering or somesuch.

But at that nascent point in time anCom and communist are not really different, anCom tries to stay close to that nascent period to my knowledge, and make it stable.
But that´s crude interpretation of their ideas.

Snowbell!MbICrazyYs 687414

File: 1487357893320.png (326.65 KB, 742x1200, 1484518531654.png)

>>687409

Well Communism's ultimate goal is anarchy, they just expect to get there through an intermediate period of a totalitarian state which will allegedly evaporate once it's no longer needed. Which is to say, once all the undesirables have been purged and everybody that remains has been thoroughly indoctrinated into believing the Communist ideal.
This post was edited by its author on .

Reaver 687420

>>687414

True enough, though let's be honest: That totalitarian state was of vital importance not against internal threats but against the outside ones.
That it got turned on the threats within is the main thing people hold against them to my knowledge after all, while their effectiveness against external threats is pretty undisputed.

Snowbell!MbICrazyYs 687429

File: 1487359851847.gif (133.15 KB, 1080x1080, 1486257341108.gif)

>>687420

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that didn't."
Even so I'd say it was used against internal threats well before they could consider external threats. Is kinda necessary when your whole theory of politics is that anybody who owns land or produces anything is the devil and must be purged, even when they're the same people who grow the food. Then once there's no food cuz you killed all the farmers you need to crush dissent to maintain power. Funny how that works.
This post was edited by its author on .

687495

File: 1487367110951.jpg (72.43 KB, 500x452, competition cooperation.jpg)

>>687420
>>687414
>>687402
>>687409
>But at that nascent point in time anCom and communist are not really different

This.

At the time, anarchy and communism were mostly inseparable. Folks like Stirner separated them to give you an idea of what 'different flavors of anarchy' look like. Here's the basic rundown as I'm familiar; anarchists reject the state as a fixture, mostly universally on principal but we recognized two things then that socialist libertarians and most socialists recognize today;
1) you have to take care of society or you do not have a plan for it (the right wing libertarians and Stirner for instance, seem not to agree). This is one of the big misconceptions I've found about anarchy; it doesn't have a plan or society falls apart. Negative, but communism is a necessary outcome of anarchy unless you love conflict or want society falling apart.
2) some sort of governance on some level has to be able to be achieved even if its broken down to community scale. The roles the state fulfills can't all just disappear. Seamless transition from not having a state function to filling one is every bit as important as making sure that 'the state' is as ephemeral as possible. A direct democracy for instance.

Communism exists on a spectrum: there are statists and there are anarchists. Lenin bridges communism into statism; and as you get into the anarchy groups most of us would tell you that he's a fine example of why you can't use the state's tools to establish communism.

That is, you can't use the tools of oppression that prevent the commune, to establish it.

Nonetheless its a revolutionary act and a revolution in political thinking. As a socialist, even as a human politicking on this planet, I believe we should seek to learn from successes and failures, and that failing a sounding success is best used for all to learn from. Some just seem to think 'her duurr socialism never worked LOOK AT LENIN' or communism etc. But these people attempted utopia. They had measures of success and failure that we must build off of.

Communism is a social, and economic flavor. It does not imply a totalitarian state. Trying to use the state's existing tools of oppression yields some unfavorable and ugly results.

Turns out you cannot get blood from a stone unless its the one thats already been used to bludgeon you with.
This post was edited by its author on .

Reaver 687507

>>687429

It's a bit more complex than that though, especially if you consider that you're effectively calling this a state's power well before this state was formed.
That a revolutionary state in its nascent phase is violent should not surprise anyone, that has been true for the Netherlands, for France, the US and plenty of others.

Snowbell!MbICrazyYs 687530

File: 1487369144506.jpg (189.55 KB, 1435x1827, 1485810024156.jpg)

>>687507

Well yes, when a state is born of violent revolution it rarely ends well, you whip the common man into a frothing rage against "them" and said man rarely turns into an enlightened philosopher immediately after. Usually they just charge about assaulting trash bins and killing anyone labeled as "them" until their warboner runs out of steam and they realize that they've left themselves with precious little infrastructure with which to build a new life upon. What's more all the talk of "freedom" and "justice" usually just ends up being talk as the revolutionaries either encounter the realities of maintaining a state which almost always compromises their ideology IE: Washington putting down the Whiskey Rebellion for dem taxes, Or the people just falling back onto the same ideology that got them into the mess in the first place, usually trading one dictator for another.

The biggest fallacy is always imagining that we're just one ideological change away from utopia. If we could just institute Socialism/Communism/NatSoc/Fascism/Islam/Christianity etc etc. all of our problems will just go away. Most of the problems plaguing any state/people are typically logistical and can't be done away with so easily.

Reaver 687534

>>687530

Yip.

Not sure about them being logistical unless i took a very loose definition for it, but fair enough.

687540

File: 1487369537955.jpg (74.66 KB, 500x500, power concedes nothing.jpg)

>>687530
>Well yes, when a state is born of violent revolution it rarely ends well

They are all violent revolutions. If its not a violent revolution theres a good chance its not worth having. On the bright side, the elite in society would sooner give up their power over it than their comfort.

Reaver 687544

>>687540

It serves to note that many 'peasant' revolutions were often led by nobles and well-off types, so it's not always so simple as being against the elite; you need at least a part of it to remain intact and on your side to get anywhere in practice.
This post was edited by its author on .

Snowbell!MbICrazyYs 687547

File: 1487369878596.png (490.52 KB, 684x2740, 20140123.png)

>>687540

There's a good chance the violent revolution isn't worth having either. Because again, you're typically just trading one dictator for another.

687558

File: 1487370660819.jpg (83.91 KB, 500x500, no option but to reconsider.jp…)

>>687547
hindsight is always 20/20, but the failure of a revolution does not always cast light on its values or lack of. Behind virtually every instance of facism you can find a failed revolution. The price of suppressing the people can be very, very high.

>>687544
Of course, I admit that the keys to power are many and 'the people!' are not the only one. This is the curse of nations whose wealth is dug from the ground; the minerals are worth more than the people's lives.

Adovocating class warfare doesn't mean we want to devour all the upper class either. Just enough to meet people's needs. A lot of the time the 'noble' was a man who did meet or professed to meet the needs of people.

But keep in mind, a lot of revolts and people being overthrown happens not because 'the people' decide, but because other keys to power decide to allow the people to do it. Its a complex system of reward and risk, and a lot of people on the same side can have different stakes in the game.

And I know that you and I both know that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' is desperately true in similarly desperate times.

Reaver 687564

>>687558

While i agree with most that i will have to point out that the latter is true only in the most dire of situations and not a second longer.

687567

File: 1487371362851.jpg (61.64 KB, 500x452, revolutions made by minorities…)

>>687564
>not a second longer
Eh, functionally, it won't be this way though. If you agree to work together with your enemy's enemy to dislodge your common enemy, there has to be some piece of the pie for those involved.

The alternative is to betray and execute them. This is a pretty legit tactic used through history mind you. Much of the time, a dictator will execute some of those that helped him once he comes to power.

The other option is he has to share. In some instances there just isn't enough of what is available to give what was promised to everyone. Others, its just easier when you have less people to worry about who need control of or access to the pie.

(pie being a general sum of a nation's wealth and productivity)

Snowbell!MbICrazyYs 687583

File: 1487373012590.png (126.08 KB, 850x709, 16387386_1193010684130583_4509…)

>>687558

>Fascism


Practically a weasel word these days. Every variety of statist is just as easily labeled a fascist.
As for "suppressing the people" that is an inevitability of any state, but generally the stronger the ideological basis of the ruling power, the greater the oppression. Theologies have carried that dubious honor for most of history, but in the last century or so we've mostly traded them in for secular ideologies like Marxism.

Anonymous 687619

>>687495
>Some just seem to think 'her duurr socialism never worked LOOK AT LENIN' or communism etc.

The reason people say socialism never worked isn't because 'LOOK AT LENIN' or 'communism', but because it literally never worked.
Wherever and wherever socialism was tried it has meet an undignified end shortly after it has started; whether it evolved into something else, whether it collapsed from within, whether it was destroyed by outside forces, it has always ended shortly after its inception.
Its kinda telling that the only "success stories" socialists have are stuff like short-lived entities in literal warzones.
The closest thing to a success socialism ever came are Scandinavian countries which are actually capitalists and in whose cases we use "socialism" in the colloquial sense.
Socialism has been predicting the catastrophic failure and end of capitalism along with success and victory of socialism literally since its creation, yet capitalism is still here and going strong, while socialism is the one that failed catastrophically and saying its on life support would be exceptionally generous.
Socialism has failed as practice and it has failed as theory as most of its key predictions have been completely wrong.

Reverend!Slavshit.Y 687678

>>687583

Comic is gold.

Mac !RevGiOKgRo 688118

File: 1487460478408.jpg (24.22 KB, 330x350, jacket.jpg)

>>687583
>comic

Snowbell!MbICrazyYs 688124

File: 1487461958197.png (137.94 KB, 2048x1077, 15675852_1584689181547904_2920…)

Reaver 688126

>>687567

That piece of the pie is usually survival on the short term in such desperate situations though, rather than anything more directly related to wealth and production.


Delete Post [ ]
Edit Post
Posts on this board may be edited for 2 hours after being made.
[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / chat ] [ rp / fan ]