The InternationaleBoard

Dominguez hills wrote:

I still don’t know the difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. Can someone please explain?

social democrats aren't socialists and support a form of capitalism. Democratic socialism is socialism but with civil and economic rights as a working class human being.

Gardneria wrote:

Democratic socialists are socialists who support a democratic state, as opposed to a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Social democrats are not socialists, but they do believe in trying to reform capitalism to be more humane via things like labor laws and a welfare state.

But they're not more humane. The workers are slaves under social democrat regimes. Social democracy is a lie. What we need is true socialism, not fake conservatives trying to look left wing.

9 of you somehow have less law enforcement than me. Gonna roll up my sleeves and get rid of my stragglers in blue

What do you guys think of Georgism?

I'd say Georgism is very... Curious.............

Why aren't georgists part of the leftist movement? Their ideas seem rational and can be paired with mutualism.

Qalbi wrote:

Why aren't georgists part of the leftist movement? Their ideas seem rational and can be paired with mutualism.

Sun Yat Sen and Kuomintang followed Georgism, they were indeed part of China's radical left, until Chiang Kai Shek's eventual betrayal of the original ideologies and spirits of Kuomintang as well as of Sun Yat Sen.

Greater Vietnam wrote:

Sun Yat Sen and Kuomintang followed Georgism, they were indeed part of China's radical left, until Chiang Kai Shek's eventual betrayal of the original ideologies and spirits of Kuomintang as well as of Sun Yat Sen.

Thank goodness for the defeat of the Kuomintang by the CPC.

Giving police military isn't a bad idea, but if you allow a police force who don't know what they're doing with tank or a bazooka, then the problem is clear.

Gaining some political freedom points turned our beautiful communist nation into a cursed “Scandinavian Liberal Paradise”. We miss our dear “Iron Fist Socialists” description. If only NationStates would allow these to be customized after you get a certain population size or something like that.

What does Marxism-Leninism say about being LGBTQ?

The east german ssr wrote:

What does Marxism-Leninism say about being LGBTQ?

Little to nothing. Both Marx and Lenin died a long time before "gay rights" became a thing people were concerned with.

Lenin technically legalized homosexuality in Russia, but only because he did away with the entire Tsarist legal code and started a new one from scratch. After he died, his successors re-criminalized it.

Qalbi wrote:

I've read before a Marxist-Leninist described it as a bourgeois by-product. The fact that you have the rise of pink capitalism shows that sexual diversity is more beneficial to capitalism than wholesome heterosexuality.

Furthermore, in a capitalist society where gay marriages are illegal, LGBT people could still succeed in the free market but if they were found in a LGBT hostile socialist country, they wouldn't have a niche to thrive in.

*pulls on my collar in a nervous fashion*

The east german ssr wrote:

*pulls on my collar in a nervous fashion*

lmao

Qalbi wrote:

I've read before a Marxist-Leninist described it as a bourgeois by-product. The fact that you have the rise of pink capitalism shows that sexual diversity is more beneficial to capitalism than wholesome heterosexuality.

Furthermore, in a capitalist society where gay marriages are illegal, LGBT people could still succeed in the free market but if they were found in a LGBT hostile socialist country, they wouldn't have a niche to thrive in.

No, the rise of pink capitalism just shows that something exists. Capitalism doesn't care about whether there's a liberal or conservative nature within a society, it will continue to do its thing either way. Lenin, as stated in a previous post, didn't oppose marriage equality. "Marxist-Leninists" who do tend to be Nazbols and the like. The Red Banner of Labor unites all workers regardless of identity and allows them to thrive. If you disagree with that, you don't belong in here. In fact, the way you're presenting socialism is basically crapping on leftism, making you no better than the conservatives. By the way, oppressed people don't just "succeed in the market" that easily. Nobody does, but especially not them. When they do, they tend to have little to nothing to do with their original identity anymore, they just become the classic bourgeoisie.

Prozitia wrote:

No, the rise of pink capitalism just shows that something exists. Capitalism doesn't care about whether there's a liberal or conservative nature within a society, it will continue to do its thing either way. Lenin, as stated in a previous post, didn't oppose marriage equality. Marxist-Leninists who do tend to be Nazbols(Stalinists). The Red Banner of Labor unites all workers regardless of identity and allows them to thrive. If you disagree with that, you don't belong in here. In fact, the way you're presenting socialism is basically crapping on leftism, making you no better than the conservatives. By the way, oppressed people don't just "succeed in the market" that easily. Nobody does, but especially not them. When they do, they tend to have little to nothing to do with their original identity anymore, they just become the classic bourgeoisie.

Okay, there are a few things to unpack here.
Just want to start out that Nazbols are not Stalinists. Nazbols are just Nazis who appropriate the communist iconography. Stalinist isn't a thing unless you're talking about Stalinist architecture. Most people that are called Stalinists are just regular Marxist-Leninists like myself. Nazbol is a whole other thing that has no connection to Stalin or what Stalin stood for.

Also, you are right when you infer capitalism couldn't care less about sexual minorities. Corporations are jumping in on things like gay pride month by changing their logos to a rainbow flag not because they actually care about sexual minorities, but because it is profitable to be seen as a supposed "progressive company" that is responding to political social trends.

Qalbi wrote:

I've read before a Marxist-Leninist described it as a bourgeois by-product. The fact that you have the rise of pink capitalism shows that sexual diversity is more beneficial to capitalism than wholesome heterosexuality.

Furthermore, in a capitalist society where gay marriages are illegal, LGBT people could still succeed in the free market but if they were found in a LGBT hostile socialist country, they wouldn't have a niche to thrive in.

That being said, back to this mess..
To act as if homosexuality or gender-nonconformity was created by capitalism or bourgeois society is completely ahistorical. Ancient civilizations from Asia, Africa, to the indigenous people of the Americas have long histories and customs that included some homosexuality and non-binary genders. Anti-homosexuality largely exists today due to colonialism and forced conversion from traditional indigenous beliefs to anti-homosexual Abrahamic religions.

Being gay isn't a "niche". Capitalism invented the nuclear heterosexual family for the purposes of consumerism. Being gay causes more disruption to a society that thrives on nuclear families than it would a communal society ran by a secular communist party. Capitalist countries have fought homosexuality extensively while communist countries have remained generally neutral on the issue. Some communist revolutions helped protect sexual minorities from religious persecution.

Corporations are seizing on this moment where homosexuality is widely accepted in some Western countries as they are trying to make a quick buck. That does not mean that being homosexual is somehow a capitalist "by-product". Communists were the first to fight for the rights of the LGBT community within oppressive Western countries like the United States.

Carrico wrote:

Okay, there are a few things to unpack here.
Just want to start out that Nazbols are not Stalinists. Nazbols are just Nazis who appropriate the communist iconography. Stalinist isn't a thing unless you're talking about Stalinist architecture. Most people that are called Stalinists are just regular Marxist-Leninists like myself. Nazbol is a whole other thing that has no connection to Stalin or what Stalin stood for.

Also, you are right when you infer capitalism couldn't care less about sexual minorities. Corporations are jumping in on things like gay pride month by changing their logos to a rainbow flag not because they actually care about sexual minorities, but because it is profitable to be seen as a supposed "progressive company" that is responding to political social trends.

That being said, back to this mess..
To act as if homosexuality or gender-nonconformity was created by capitalism or bourgeois society is completely ahistorical. Ancient civilizations from Asia, Africa, to the indigenous people of the Americas have long histories and customs that included some homosexuality and non-binary genders. Anti-homosexuality largely exists today due to colonialism and forced conversion from traditional indigenous beliefs to anti-homosexual Abrahamic religions.

Being gay isn't a "niche". Capitalism invented the nuclear heterosexual family for the purposes of consumerism. Being gay causes more disruption to a society that thrives on nuclear families than it would a communal society ran by a secular communist party. Capitalist countries have fought homosexuality extensively while communist countries have remained generally neutral on the issue. Some communist revolutions helped protect sexual minorities from religious persecution.

Corporations are seizing on this moment where homosexuality is widely accepted in some Western countries as they are trying to make a quick buck. That does not mean that being homosexual is somehow a capitalist "by-product". Communists were the first to fight for the rights of the LGBT community within oppressive Western countries like the United States.

Edited the miswording out.

Qalbi wrote:

I've read before a Marxist-Leninist described it as a bourgeois by-product. The fact that you have the rise of pink capitalism shows that sexual diversity is more beneficial to capitalism than wholesome heterosexuality.

Furthermore, in a capitalist society where gay marriages are illegal, LGBT people could still succeed in the free market but if they were found in a LGBT hostile socialist country, they wouldn't have a niche to thrive in.

Where'd you read that from?

Carrico wrote:

Okay, there are a few things to unpack here.
Just want to start out that Nazbols are not Stalinists. Nazbols are just Nazis who appropriate the communist iconography. Stalinist isn't a thing unless you're talking about Stalinist architecture. Most people that are called Stalinists are just regular Marxist-Leninists like myself. Nazbol is a whole other thing that has no connection to Stalin or what Stalin stood for.

Also, you are right when you infer capitalism couldn't care less about sexual minorities. Corporations are jumping in on things like gay pride month by changing their logos to a rainbow flag not because they actually care about sexual minorities, but because it is profitable to be seen as a supposed "progressive company" that is responding to political social trends.

That being said, back to this mess..
To act as if homosexuality or gender-nonconformity was created by capitalism or bourgeois society is completely ahistorical. Ancient civilizations from Asia, Africa, to the indigenous people of the Americas have long histories and customs that included some homosexuality and non-binary genders. Anti-homosexuality largely exists today due to colonialism and forced conversion from traditional indigenous beliefs to anti-homosexual Abrahamic religions.

Being gay isn't a "niche". Capitalism invented the nuclear heterosexual family for the purposes of consumerism. Being gay causes more disruption to a society that thrives on nuclear families than it would a communal society ran by a secular communist party. Capitalist countries have fought homosexuality extensively while communist countries have remained generally neutral on the issue. Some communist revolutions helped protect sexual minorities from religious persecution.

Corporations are seizing on this moment where homosexuality is widely accepted in some Western countries as they are trying to make a quick buck. That does not mean that being homosexual is somehow a capitalist "by-product". Communists were the first to fight for the rights of the LGBT community within oppressive Western countries like the United States.

It's great to know that I don't have to separate my sexuality from my political beliefs. I'm glad I can be openly gay, and openly communist. Thank you all.

Comrades, please endorse my nation. I need more influence to prepare for the upcoming Z-Day.

The east german ssr wrote:

It's great to know that I don't have to separate my sexuality from my political beliefs. I'm glad I can be openly gay, and openly communist. Thank you all.

Same with me. I'm from the LGBTQ+ community and I'm still a libertarian communist, because unlike Capitalism, Communism (or at least the form that I believe in) actually cares about the LGBTQ+ community.

Australian labour unions wrote:

Same with me. I'm from the LGBTQ+ community and I'm still a libertarian communist, because unlike Capitalism, Communism (or at least the form that I believe in) actually cares about the LGBTQ+ community.

(At least the form that I believe in) is quite the panacea. The question is, what --if anything -- should the rest of the Warsaw Pact have done differently in response to ... crud, I just came back around to Ceucescu.

The east german ssr wrote:

What does Marxism-Leninism say about being LGBTQ?

I don't have much experience, but I can tell you how I feel about it: I think it's wrong to use a person's sexual orientation to make politics. It should be personal and frankly I can't stand people talking about traditional family. Unfortunately, the persecution of homosexuals has remained almost unknown in history. The excuse then used by the conservatives is the usual one: they do it to make the population grow, in practice it is similar to the policies adopted by fascism.