SpartacustheGreat, The Wordsmith

Member Since

10/11/2014

Last Activity

2/21/2018 8:15 PM

EXP Points

401

Post Count

1044

Storygame Count

0

Duel Stats

12 wins / 10 losses

Order

Warden

Commendations

0

I hate Mondays.

Trophies Earned

Earning 100 Points

Storygames

California Death School
unpublished

An orgy of sex and blood.


Ruins of Albion
unpublished

Here be dragons.


Recent Posts

True story, bro. on 2/15/2018 9:56:25 PM

Image result for ey b0ss fuk u mang


A Valentine's Day Thread on 2/14/2018 10:18:35 PM

Then why are you standing in front of a NCR flag?


A Valentine's Day Thread on 2/14/2018 10:16:58 PM

Rangers don't cry. You're a disgrace to the NCR. 


Commie Thread on 1/23/2018 10:10:31 PM

>At the same time, you claimed that Mao's reforms 'only killed peasants', and this is also something that is frequently parroted and outlined among the bourgeois intellectuals and philistines, almost never in mainstream conversation does anyone mention the great differences in Chinese society between the 1940s and mid 1970s, just muh Mao Zedong killed 60 million people with his bare hands for no apparent reason because that's what ebil gommies do I guess.

No, I acknowledged the positives he brought when you mentioned them. I didn't deny the good he did, albeit at a cost. Don't bring mainstream conversation into this, this is between me and you. 

>Mao didn't ignore basic human rights.

>He stripped the reactionaries and bourgeoisie of their rights

??? 

How does this make sense to you? Are "bourgeoisie" and "reactionaries" suddenly not human? And justifying this kind of action based on the fact that another dictator did it to another group of people is no excuse. 

And that quote by Lenin is absolute nonsensical drivel. 

>Moot and irrelevant.

No, not moot and irrelevant. You said that "Lenin and Stalin acted like any other leader in history", when clearly there are examples to the contrary, and few that went to the length that they did. 

>You'd have a lot more ground to work with if the high rates were consistent across all years.

They're pretty damn high in the years before the war, and all the years are far higher than any sort of death rate for US prisons. 

>Slavery is the the specific word used in the 13th amendment, hence why I used it.

Yes, penal labor is allowed if you commit a crime in the United States, which I don't support. But this seems very hypocritical of you especially since you support the gulags, of which the entire function was to serve as a work camp. 

>You said how could I stand for oppression when Stalin sent people to gulags, I was merely pointing out the difference in the bourgeoisie oppressing a worker and punishment for a crime.

Jailing someone for murder is not "bourgeoisie oppressing a worker", it's putting away a criminal who murdered, raped, or otherwise harmed other people. 

Punishment for crimes such as daring to express a contrary opinion? Protesting the actions of the government? Unspeakable. 

>The day the bourgeoisie give up sacred private property and sacred surplus value is the day they lose their power over the workers. In other words this is something that will never happen, capitalism will never magically transcend to communism with peace and more and more intensified capitalism and imperialism, fucking lmao. To go to communism from capitalism will require a long and protracted class struggle and bloodshed, just like going to bourgeois liberal democracy from feudalism did, just like going to feudalism from slave societies did.

I'm not advocating for capitalism to go to communism, I'm stating that capitalism will be improved with social and economic reform until to the point where everybody has a good standard of living. 

A long and protracted class struggle and bloodshed? Doesn't sound quite as good as a continuously improving quality of life under a social democracy. 

>In what way does social democracy mean Marxism holds 'less water'? I'd love it if you told me how using the three components of Marxism outlined here, do specifically tell me how free college and healthcare means this all means nothing and we should instead intensify capitalism to magically become communist, nevermind the fact that communism is very different from capitalism.

I'm really not sure where you got the idea that I support a transition to communism, because I don't. At all. A social democracy removes most, if not all of the potential threats to a worker. Universal healthcare means that the worker isn't burdened with costs for his health, something he is entitled to. A high minimum wage guarantees that the worker is able to create a high standard of life for himself. Free college gives everyone an opportunity to build skills and qualities that could potential earn them higher-paying jobs. It gives workers what they need without the political oppression and violent revolution that Marxism/communism demands. 

>Because we have the means to end all those deaths easily, but due to capitalism, specifically the fact that capitalism (yes even social democracies!) upholds private property and profit over human lives, we cannot save those people. Funny how a person dying from starvation in socialist country is a point against socialism, but when a person dies in capitalism its just 'vague and unspecificed (?)'

Tell me, how do social democracy uphold private property and profit over human lives? 

And I will give you that western media often exaggerates deaths under communism, and that some capitalist countries are behind in human and economic rights, but I fail to see how communist countries do any better. 

>It doesn't matter what your interests are, as what we are personally concerning ourselves with are the bourgeoisies class interests, which include imperialism, death, and war in order to retain and uphold the shackles of capital over the world.

Yeah did does matter what my interests are, because you thought waving US interventions in my face was relevant when I don't support most of them. 

>It really doesn't matter because they're still capitalist countries which means they suffer from all the contradictions which plague any other 'regular' capitalist country. I'm sure free college is nice and all but its ultimately quite irrelevant.

What "contradictions"? 

Yes, free college is very nice. You know what is also nice? Universal healthcare. Oh, and high minimum wages as well. And you know what's funny for me? The fact that social democracies such as Sweden managed to do this without millions of deaths , without the crushing of political opposition, and without the suffering of the workers, something that communist countries somehow never managed to accomplish. What are the workers fighting for if they have all of their rights, and more? What does communism give to the workers if they have everything they need? 

All they will be fighting for is the right to starve, the right to have their freedoms taken away, the right to be used, the right to have their individual identities taken away in favor of one enormous collective that sucks all uniqueness and dissent out of a person. 


Commie Thread on 1/22/2018 6:44:40 PM

>That's kind of true, the CPC was responsible for the Great Leap Forward famine. At the same time Mao's policies did much more than accidentally cause a famine. He improved literacy and education, he fought for women's and worker's rights and destroyed the old reactionary traditions which harmed people, he conducted land reform and destroyed the old feudal arrangement of things and gave land to the peasants, he industrialized and modernized China making it a superpower, he encouraged the oppressed of the world to fight back against the imperialist dogs and stood as a brick wall against them, and he's probably responsible for China's overpopulation problems right now.

I'm not going to deny the positives, but it is very hard to overlook the fact that millions died in the process, and Mao accomplished this all while ignoring basic human rights. Also, China's economy only managed to rival the US after it adapted to a capitalist form. 

>Lenin and Stalin acted like any other leader in history: they put their own class interests and philosophy above all else, and dealt with any opposition using the State. That's not a 'socialist' or 'feudal' thing, that's just a government thing. (see my response to enterpride below for more elaboration)

There are plenty of leaders who never had to resort to killing millions and stamping out all dissidents. 

>Work camps are kind of a different topic. First as this graph taken from Wikipedia shows the gulags were far from the 'death camps' they are typically portrayed as in bourgeois media (how hypocritical considering slavery is perfectly fine in America at least as punishment for crime). In general I believe punishment should also include some rehabilitation, and that prisoners should somehow be productive to society rather than just using up tax money like they do now, so I'm not 100% against them.

First of all, those death rates are still unacceptably high. I mean at one point it gets to nearly 1/5th of all prisoners dying. Second, pretty weird how you call prisons "slavery" but are fine with rehabilitation. 

 >oppression of workers = / =  oppression and punishment of criminals. 

What does this even mean? Jailing rapists and murderers is somehow worse than sending political dissidents to the gulag? 

>No one denies this, and Marxism recognizes this. Your mistake is thinking that just because wages are better, worker's rights are better, and that the 'general condition of the working class has improved', Marxist critiques of capitalist societies have been rendered completely useless.

They are no completely useless no, but their arguments hold less water. Conditions are only going to continue to improve as the world become developed, and we won't need communism in the end. 

>[1] [2] [3]

ok, privileged fool.

You calling ME privileged? What a laugh. But I fail to see how it's the fault of capitalism for those deaths, especially when the numbers are so vague and unspecified. Also, as for the second and third links, I don't support most US interventions and I pretty much stated this when I condemned Bautista and the US companies in Cuba. 

>No not really.

Let's start with just one example then. South Korea, a capitalist country, has an infinitely higher standard living than North Korea, a "communist" country. Refute this. 

>Social democracies, which don't combine socialism and capitalism and are 100% capitalist...

Hmmm, maybe you're right. Alright, let's try this then. 

Social democracies, which is capitalism with a large social welfare net, clearly create the highest quality countries to live in. 

>I'd rather you didn't concern yourself so much about my faith. If it worries you so much, just imagine me being slightly more atheistic as you read my arguments. Furthermore I think you should watch this, and just absorb what the guy says.

It is extremely difficult not to concern myself with it when it contradicts all of your supposed beliefs. And that video and its creator are both garbage, especially when one of his videos consists of a defense of the Winter War, a very imperialist action by Stalin. 

 >complains about the horrors and totaltirainizms of communism, and muh poor 100 billion kulaks, but then makes helicopter jokes, neat.

Okay, so it's fine when you advocate for the suspension of basic human rights and political opposition unironically it's fine, but me apologizing for making a joke in bad taste is worse?


Commie Thread on 1/22/2018 5:11:05 PM

I'll give you this much. I can understand where Mao and Lenin and Castro and their ilk were coming from. The Tsarist and Bautista regimes were some of the worst ever in human history. Bautista essentially sold out his country to America by letting them own big companies while he got rich off of the labors of his fellow countrymen. The Tsars brutally suppressed all revolt and and opposition much like the Bolsheviks did, and treated all those below them like subhumans. Mao was betrayed several times over by Chiang Kai-Shek and his Nationalists and barely managed to survive at all. 

They were treated like garbage by the ruling class, and so like any reasonable person would, they lashed out. They represented the anger of the workers who had been misaligned and downtrodden by the ruling landowners and companies, the fury of having their homeland overrun by foreign interests the outrage at the fact that nobody was doing anything to stop it. 

I really do get why communists did what they did. I probably would have been a communist myself had I been in their situation. That being said, there is no excusing what they did after they took power(with the possible exception of Castro). 

Mao's so called "reforms" did nothing but kill peasants. Peasants, whose interests he had sworn to uphold. How can anybody call themselves the leader of a class if their actions decimate members of that group? 

Lenin acted like a Tsar himself, suppressing most opposition violently. And Stalin was even worse. How can you speak of racism and oppressed groups without mentioning the dozens of minorities deported or sent to work camps by the Soviets under his reign? 

Castro is probably the best out of all of them, considering he managed to keep the body count relatively low and did a lot of good for his country without causing mass famine and general anarchy. I applaud Castro for his implementation of universal healthcare, universal education, black rights, and for attempting to aid other countries in need even while they were struggling themselves. Cuba is way better off under Castro and his relatives than it ever was under Bautista and the US. But, this is under socialism, which can work under certain circumstances, not communism, which Cuba has yet to attempt to convert fully to. 

Your mistake is applying 19th and 20th century teachings to a 21st century setting. Wages are better, worker's rights are better, the general condition of the working class has improved as a whole, without the death and destruction brought by attempts at communism. The US is one of the more shittier countries in terms of income disparity, true, but other forms of economics and government have emerged in other better countries. When you compare the living standard that of western countries to that of former communist bloc nations, you can see a huge difference. Social democracies, which combine socialism and capitalism, clearly create the highest quality countries to live in. 

But discounting all of that, what annoys everyone here is that you're a plain hypocrite. It is literally impossible to support Islam and communism without contradicted yourself. No matter how you try to frame it, women and religious minorities are not treated equally in an Islamic society. That is the very antithesis of communism, is it not? 

I hope you got some sense out of this, if not, at the very least I'm sorry for offering you a helicopter ride. Nobody but the Nazis deserve that. 


Commie Thread on 1/22/2018 3:55:30 PM

@FazzTheMan


Commie Thread on 1/22/2018 3:54:27 PM

Fazz, I am proud and honored to be the first to offer you a free helicopter ride. I really am shocked that I was awarded this distinction, considering the long list of very qualified people who wanted this privilege for themselves. But no, I have been graced with this tremendous opportunity to give you the experience of a lifetime. Hop right in. 

Image result for helicopter


Commie Thread on 1/22/2018 3:50:27 PM

But you just advocated for the killing of rich people, so clearly you're against them. 


Commie Thread on 1/22/2018 3:39:20 PM

You know, you're like Fazz except on the opposite end of the spectrum.