by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .19,64719,64819,64919,65019,65119,65219,653. . .20,50920,510»

The RMB isn't at its finest today, so let's spark a drop of alternative discussion

Luganskaya wrote:I mean I guess? Idk.

In communism are you allowed to own personal property? Like firearms or glasses or phones etc. And what’s the difference between private and personal property?

Personal property is the goods and services we use daily to cover our needs (and to survive). Examples would be a watch, a car, a toothbrush, a bag of doritos etc

Private property is the means we utilise to create all of that. In capitalism, people who are born rich get to manage the means of production (the private property) and they create goods and services not to please our needs, but to accumulate profit (capital). That's why we call rich people ''capitalists''.

In communism (and in every system) there is personal property. The difference is, in communism private property is owned by the public, by the people who work there, and not by any birth-assigned capitalists. In a communist's view, when one or more rich individuals try to control the means of production for their own benefit, that is not democracy. That is a dictatorship of the capitalists (who we also call bourgoise). Even if you still get the chance to vote in regional elections, your country is still a dictatorship, because the rich dictate your whole life by setting up a working system, an economy, a school system etc. The verb ''dictate'' means ''have power over somebody'' in Latin, so a minority (the rich people) exert power over us (the ordinary people, who run the machines)

Some rare people say that in communist society there will also be abolition of personal property too, but I don't agree with that because I find the idea of sharing your personals like a toothbrush or clothes very silly. This ideology is called communalism, but I don't think it's serious, just as many other ideologies or movements online, it's a high-effort joke.

Concluding, if you desire democracy, an option of yours would be to lean towards communism. If for some reason you disagree and you want rich people to keep undemocratic control over the means of production and economy, you are a conservative. The world of politics is truly majestic isn't it?

Kalang overn wrote:I might be wrong, but under communism you can have private property, but the means of production and other such services are publicly owned. But, yet again, I might be wrong on that one

If there is private property in a system, it's most likely capitalism - communism can't have private property. If you theoretically imagined a world where the workers control and manage the machines, but there is still private property (like owning houses or automated stations?) that wouldn't be communism nor capitalism. People there could still invest in the housing business or smth like that so would houses eventually turn to workplaces? Idk I think you just created a new ideology with that question lmfao

Socialist republics of china wrote:How to say……My first reaction to this statement was that it sounded strange (if I remember correctly, Proudhon, one of the founders of anarchism, also expressed his views on communist society - he did not like communist society because he could not imagine what a society without private ownership was like) .
The ideal world of the future in the minds of you anarchists (in your terms, you should be an anarchist) cannot be called a "communist society."In material terms, communist society is a society which have "presupposed by a very high level of productivity, material wealth is extremely abundant, and the consumption materials needed by each person can be distributed according to needs. ". In such a highly developed ideal society, everyone have not necessary to guarantee any consumption materials for their own (such as luxury goods, collectibles, and the most basic means of subsistence that guarantee their own minimum survival). When what is consumed can be quickly replenished, there is no precondition for the existence of private desire, and there is no need for private property. Just as the self-demise of the (proletarian) states, the demise of private property is not forced but self-propelled, not sudden but gradual. In our Marxist (or narrowly communist) view, the self-demise of private property and its derivatives (such as ethnic nations and states) is an inevitable trend in historical development.

I mostly agree with you but it's not very useful to talk about Proudhon or such difficult concepts to understand with a newbie leftist who are just trying to understand communism. Also - one thing I didn't quite catch in your words - do you mean that anarchists desire a world of private property? Only anarcho-capitalists want that, not leftist anarchists. As an anarcho-communist myself I'd like to add that, just because some anarchists like Proudhon or Makhno eventually turned revisionist doesn't mean all anarchists are revisionists. I think you are making a reference to the USSR collectivising even the private property of the middle class (self-sufficient families, who owned small-scale business like a bakery or vegetable shop). I may be wrong but you're probably thinking that anarchists disagree with this much collectivisation, and that they believe it's best to collectivise the property of the bourgeoise (upper class and upper middle class only) and not the lower middle class as well - I agree with that, taking away a mildly poor family's bakery wouldn't be the best decision for a new-born socialist state.

The communist state of brazil

New Astri wrote:there really isn't one, the definitions are identical unless someone is being biphobic and defining bisexuality incorrectly. some people still choose to use the label pan instead of bi because they don't understand the definition of bisexual or are dealing with personal discomfort around identifying as bisexual

I normally dont stick around with such labels much but I think bisexuality is being attracted to a binary amount of genders (for example 2 or 3) while pansexuality is being attracted to any gender so no gender preference there.

4D Donkeys wrote:I normally dont stick around with such labels much but I think bisexuality is being attracted to a binary amount of genders (for example 2 or 3) while pansexuality is being attracted to any gender so no gender preference there.

Guess I'm pan then 🤷‍♂️

4D Donkeys wrote:I normally dont stick around with such labels much but I think bisexuality is being attracted to a binary amount of genders (for example 2 or 3) while pansexuality is being attracted to any gender so no gender preference there.

untrue and biphobic. bisexuality has always meant, and always will mean, attraction to all/any genders with or without a preference. you can't claim otherwise without erasing bisexual history and perpetuating biphobia.

Doofinshmirtz and Rinascenza

yo

Doofinshmirtz wrote:Guess I'm pan then 🤷‍♂️

you don't have to change how you identify based on one inaccurate statement from someone online :P

New Astri wrote:you don't have to change how you identify based on one inaccurate statement from someone online :P

Thank you :)

Russsie wrote: snip

The hell they aren’t. I’ve dated a poly girl, and I have a bi friend. They are absolutely not the same. One likes multiple relationships, the other just one. Quit your bigotry and read up on sexuality.

Opressia

I guess I haven't really introduced myself, I just kinda showed up and started talking. So I'm gonna introduce myself and give you guys a bit more info about me!

I am the People's Republic of Opressia and I am new to NationStates. I have joined the Communist Bloc because my country is Communist (Not to mention it sounded the most appealing). My interests are anything military related, including military history, equipment and technology and things like that. I love the Cold War most of all. I also love history, especially the 20th century. I am interested in things like politics, global relations and issues, and international wars and conflicts. Personally, I identify as straight and male however I am respectful towards everyone and I will continue to uphold that here. I am excited to be a part of the Communist Bloc and I hope I can become a good, functioning member of the group!

(Sorry to just kinda butt in like this out of nowhere)

New Astri, Kingdom of Voidstania, Southwest America, Socialist republics of china, and 6 othersDoofinshmirtz, 4D Donkeys, The communist state of brazil, Alutiiq, Rinascenza, and Tierra de cacao

Welcome!

Peace and tranquility

I can’t be the only one who thought “eternally raging internal conflicts” was funny to hear.

Zerbez, Alutiiq, Rinascenza, and Peace and tranquility

Alutiiq wrote:The hell they aren’t. I’ve dated a poly girl, and I have a bi friend. They are absolutely not the same. One likes multiple relationships, the other just one. Quit your bigotry and read up on sexuality.

One can be bisexual and poly, but one does not need to be poly to be bi

Zerbez, Alutiiq, and Srednji tabor

Opressia wrote:snip

Greetings Opressia! At first glance, your name seemed just a tiny bit... questionable? (Because you know, communism isn't opression, but here in the Bloc we don't care about in-game statistics anyways) I am also interested in politics, geography, biology etc. Make yourself at home!

I dont intend to advertise anything here but since you're interested in military related stuff you can join an unformal alliance for future role-plays:

The ISCO is a Far-Left international military alliance for revolutionary anti-capitalist nations and territories across NationStates.

Created by 4D Donkeys and open to any progressive countries to potentially join, our aim is to spread Marxist ideas throughout the in-game world and even unite together in regional events such as in role-plays under a common goal that we will decide.

We work and cooperate with no leader. We speak colloquially and not oppressively. We have modernised militaries, ready to gather our strength together if needed.

RULES AND CONSTITUTION

1. No sectarianism. We accept all leftist ideologies but don’t call each other “tankie” or “trot” if given the chance, for example in a role-play.

2. We believe in freedom, not oppression. This means we agree with the idea that everyone has equal rights AND duties - not an infinite amount of one of these two, as that would start oppression.

3. We agree that, in order to successfully bring and establish Socialism or at least progressive ideas, we need mass action. Any non mass action on behalf of the working class is considered terror and shall not be tolerated.

4. For the reasons above, the following ideologies can’t join: Any Right-associated ideology, National-Bolshevism, National-Anarchism, Strasserism, National-Socialism, Conservative Socialism, Left-Wing Nationalism, Communist Capitalism, Primitivism, Nihilism, Illegalism, Egoism, Individualism, Insurrectionism, Accelerarionism. Exceptions apply for all those except National-Socialism!

5. Nations within this alliance are prohibited from attacking other members except if something else was originally provoked.

6. We agree with Socialism from Below and that we need to put capitalism away, now or later, for something better.

Are you ready to join us in the last struggle, comrade?
Well, just telegram me to join and feel free to ask questions!

MEMBERS

4D Donkeys
Frostilandia
Westkongo
Random tcb roleplay lad
Eldiano yeagerista
Comunista brasileira
Soviet Kem
Socialist Indian Republics
Communist party of eastland
The Antarian Commonwealth
Brenirven
Shan Alls
Zitherstadt
Nanoc
Mallissa
Keaben

Any nations with a realistic, Earth-based nation or territory can join the map and be shown here. Will be updated once a few days.

MAP

WIP! WILL BE MADE TOMORROW!
Lmao who am I kidding I will never make it

Read dispatch

Zerbez and Alutiiq

New Astri wrote:there really isn't one, the definitions are identical unless someone is being biphobic and defining bisexuality incorrectly. some people still choose to use the label pan instead of bi because they don't understand the definition of bisexual or are dealing with personal discomfort around identifying as bisexual

thaaanks

Though it may sound like it, my country's name has nothing to do with oppression. I just thought it sounded cool and didn't realize until now that it kinda sounds like it. It's pronounced Opreshia for those who wanted to know I guess.

Opressia wrote:Though it may sound like it, my country's name has nothing to do with oppression. I just thought it sounded cool and didn't realize until now that it kinda sounds like it. It's pronounced Opreshia for those who wanted to know I guess.

You can make another nation using another name if you don't like this one. Better do it now that you have 6 mil population than later when you're gonna have 500 mil

Yeah, I think I'm gonna do that. Would someone mind sending me a telegram when I make my country? It's gonna be called Maridonia.

New Astri wrote:there really isn't one, the definitions are identical unless someone is being biphobic and defining bisexuality incorrectly. some people still choose to use the label pan instead of bi because they don't understand the definition of bisexual or are dealing with personal discomfort around identifying as bisexual

Agreed, although the most common difference I've seen is:
Bi - not all genders and each gender liked for different reasons
Omni - all genders and each liked for different reasons
Pan - all genders not for different reasons so irregardless of gender
Polysexual (not polyamory or polygamy, not related to those) - only specific genders but no difference between them

Not prescriptive just describing what I've commonly seen

Gayiyyah wrote:Agreed, although the most common difference I've seen is:
Bi - not all genders and each gender liked for different reasons
Omni - all genders and each liked for different reasons
Pan - all genders not for different reasons so irregardless of gender
Polysexual (not polyamory or polygamy, not related to those) - only specific genders but no difference between them

Not prescriptive just describing what I've commonly seen

yeah, so, uh...those are all bizarre, biphobic neo-labels that have no basis in lgbt history or material experience. bisexuality is and always has been attraction to all genders with or without a preference. someone who likes all genders in different ways is bi. someone who likes all genders in the same way is bi. someone who only likes specific genders is probably experiencing some lack of understanding over how nonbinary people can be included in different sexualities

Post by Tamizh suppressed by New Astri.

[quote=new_astri;50169746]Motherfuсker that's eugenics and no way in hell are you allowed to support it in the Bloc. "For cosmetic purposes and health" is a literal immediate track to people getting rid of "undesirable" minority traits and trying to edit disabled people out of existence

That's not wrong imo. You are actually reducing their suffering before they were even born. Disabled people should be treated well and fair but not preventing disability would be so stupid. I do think it has some ethical concerns but i think it's the way to go.

And I'm back yet again after a short hiatus from this and Youtube and I drop into the middle of this conversation. Seems like the discussion's took a rather sharp turn.

The mutual farming organization

Kensington wrote:And I'm back yet again after a short hiatus from this and Youtube and I drop into the middle of this conversation. Seems like the discussion's took a rather sharp turn.

I’m just here to advertise farming

Hello! I previously was Opressia but now I have created a new country. I am still the same person behind the computer, though.

I'm back Sire!

wow the RMB was pretty chaotic a while ago
anyways hows the Bloc doing today

«12. . .19,64719,64819,64919,65019,65119,65219,653. . .20,50920,510»

Advertisement