The InternationaleBoard

Welcome/welcome back to The Internationale, comrades Nova cheena, Egalie, Marxist socialist republic, Chesterfield island, Yuggera, Australian labour unions, Bruiwana, Steorraland, Nivosia, Tonsea, Tombulu Portus fragrans, Homhejmo, New wolhne, Zawikhiztan, Troslovia, Gayugoslavia and Leone trotsky.

Dieboldsheim wrote:

--Hey, it's the ol' KGB disinformation machine, The Gray Zone, which brought us investigative reporting like, 'no crisis in Venezuela, full shelves for the in-group, fake news.'
--Here's photographic proof from a reputable press, one which gets me dismissed as a commie shill when I cite it elsewhere: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/24/china-imprisoning-uighurs-satellite-images-xinjiang
Also, do quote or ping me next time.

You did not just post a link to The Guardian and imply it's a source to be trusted by communists.
No.
You just didn't.

Dieboldsheim wrote:

It's better than Sputnik these days =P
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iFYUjX7RbQQ

--And no, I didn't. If you go back and read the whole sentence, there's the word "elsewhere". This implies that The Internationale would not make that error, and therefore that The Guardian is some kind of center-[left]. It's a comment on how dismissing the 'mainstream media' as {capitalist, communist, fascist...} puts one in rather awkward company, not to mention thickening The Horseshoe.

There are reasons why sources may be the way they are, and it's not just dismissing opposing stances for no reason. You seem to be a bit too stuck on the conventional understanding of political spectrum and discourse, even though I agree that being dogmatic is not the right approach.

*strained laughter* why is it always when I try and get back on the RMB we're talking about China? *sigh* I won't give my opinion on the matter given how well that went last time, just that you should try all major news sources to get the big picture on something, not just one or two (yes, even Chinese ones. You'll be able to deduce how fact worthy they are by reading other ones).

my 2 cents here (from a person who works for a communist paper):

To select/dismiss sources or journalistic works exclusively on the basis of the media outlet, where it is geografically located and its perceived political stance may likely lead to very serious bias (confirmation bias, generally: you read articles that confirms your ideas and avoid the ones that challenge and even possibly strengthen them).

I'm not saying they're not relevant at all. However journalism has its own professional cultures, ethical guidelines and deontological norms, developed within the journalistic community and possibly away from institutional political pressure. Where they are strong, we may find good reporting.

Chonghaile wrote:

Thank for accepting our humble new nation, Comrades.

Welcome to The Internationale, comrade. I hope you will have fun here!

Dominguez hills wrote:

Why does the game equate regulations with authoritarianism? It’s a weird glitch/libertarian bias in the game design.

I don't really like the term authoritarianism. It is used very biasedly and lacks a real meaning. Every state is 'authoritarian' in general in the sense that it has some kind of rules that it enforces. I'd argue the difference is that capitalist-run states are authoritarian in different areas than communist-run states are. Communist states may limit political affiliation, but they have greater workplace democracy. Opposite of that, capitalist states are very authoritarian in the workplace, but may not limit things like political affiliations.

I'm new to the game but I guess there are some mainstream biased views on politics here. "left Utopia" is enlarged state based on large taxes. seems to me there is no place for alternative politics in "nationstates".

Carrico wrote:

I don't really like the term authoritarianism. It is used very biasedly and lacks a real meaning. Every state is 'authoritarian' in general in the sense that it has some kind of rules that it enforces. I'd argue the difference is that capitalist-run states are authoritarian in different areas than communist-run states are. Communist states may limit political affiliation, but they have greater workplace democracy. Opposite of that, capitalist states are very authoritarian in the workplace, but may not limit things like political affiliations.

It usually refers to Centralism vs Decentralism(in terms of economy, law and political structure), sometimes even the amount of intersectionality. I wouldn't say it lacks meaning, just that it's irrelevant and wrongly taken into account in Nationstates. Also; I'm kinda weirded out that you, as a Marxist-Leninist, didn't mention Soviet Democracy or Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.

Carrico wrote:

I didn’t include those examples, but those are good points. The dictatorship of the proletariat is considered authoritarian, but dictatorship of oligarchy in places like America is not. I’d argue the dictatorship of the proletariat is the only way to truly maintain any type of democracy or economic equality. That’s why the term is so biased and meaningless to me.

It should be noted that originally the words such as "dictator" and "tyrant" didn't have negative connotations as they are in the contemporary age. Moreover Marxism has a different definition of democracy compared to the representative democratic government of the bourgeoisie.

Dictatorship of the proletariat has never been intended to be a be-all and end-all model. It's merely a transition phase when proletariats of a country seize power and the means of production in that country to eventually bring about socialism and then communism. When that country has achieved sustainable socialism then only at that point would that country begin to draw plan to bring about communism, even though I doubt any country can achieve communism alone, rather it requires cooperation between countries of the whole world. But I think that if at that point the majority of the world hasn't become socialist yet, then we still have the final frontier to draw manpower, technology and resources from - extraterrestrial space. Given enough time we may accumulate enough requisites to achieve communism.

Back to the subject, it should be noted that democracy itself is not the most ideal form of society and government. Democracy itself is oppression, with the majority compels the minority to follow the decision made by them, even though a majority makes up only like 51% of the people and the minority makes up 49% - the result of the Brexit voting. So nearly 50% of the people would still have to put up with the decision of nearly 50% of other people.

Hence as long as there is democracy, a number of people would still have to oblige the decision made by the majority. The goal of communism is to transcend democracy, so that no one would have to live by the decisions made by other people, and everyone would be truly the master of their own lives. That's freedom to the fullest extent of such very word. That's also one of the things which make communism more desirable compared to capitalism.

Burritobowl wrote:

Speaking of democracy, anyone here have any comments about the MAS victory in Bolivia?

It was good.

Burritobowl wrote:

Speaking of democracy, anyone here have any comments about the MAS victory in Bolivia?

I think it was well deserved since MAS’s victory came from the people and not from a coup or corruption