What are your political views?

[Syndicapolis]

So many misconceptions about communism and anarchism...

Here are some thoughts I had while reading through this thread:

- Anarchism =/= Marxism. The two have been separate since the First International split, and are proving very difficult to reconcile, as we can observe through all the splitting libertarian and authoritarian wings of internationals and other groups have done and the way Marxists (the PSUC) and anarchists (the CNT) turned against each other during the Spanish Civil War despite having common ends. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a fundamental part of Marxist praxis, and I would go as far as to say that if you oppose it, you are not a Marxist, regardless of other beliefs.

- "National Anarchism," "National Bolshevism," and "National Socialism," are all nonsensical oxymorons and about as socialist as Third Positionism. Socialism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. Nations are social constructs which are used by ruling classes to subjugate and indoctrinate the masses as well as to provide a pretty way to legitimise war, murder, discrimination, authoritarianism, militarism, imperialism and other awful things. They were born with class and will die as class dies, and are fundamentally non-proletarian in character.

- Communists are sectarian as fuck and have been so since the aforementioned split of the First International. As such, while we all agree on the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, we have different views on what is to be done (okay, terrible pun) with personal possessions. I, for one, do oppose individual ownership of personal possessions and think individuals only have a right to things insofar as they are using them. Even hygiene items should belong to society above the individual in my view - if the soviet decided to redistribute toothbrushes, it would do it.

- This Bushite rhetoric of "but corporations are people too! But corporate executives have the right to exploit and enslave their workers however they want! But CEOs have an inherent right to own the sweatshops they own because they, erm, totally don't live off the surplus value produced from the labour of others!" really bothers me. Corporations are not humans, do not have human rights, and necessarily exploit workers due to the very existence of capital and therefore the existence of a market economy (which is why market socialism is an oxymoron) and if anything, those who operate the means of production should be the ones to democratically control it, not some other person who lives off the labour of employees.

[Olerand]

You certainly do. You may not, however, refuse service to the "negro, faggot, towel head" or what have you.

Interesting. The Nazis never intended to kill us, however. So...

Well the conservatives obviously were going to be strong and resist the far left rule of the Nazis so naturally the Nazis saw them as a problem, ever read stories of the Nazis retaliations towards resistance members families? Burned an entire village down, not even the children were spared

Conservatives, not Gaullists, collaborated. Gaullists resisted, and socialists/social democrats sometimes did too. Communists didn't, and collaborated up until the Nazi invasion of the USSR, after which they spearheaded the domestic French Resistance, as the Gaullists were still overseas.

You really don't have to tell me about Oradour-sur-Glane, I'm of the region. I know the story.

[Conscentia]

When is egoism not based on narcissism?

A lot of the time?
When egoism is based on the notion that each individual can only experience for themselves, it's not necessarily narcissistic.

Does not compute.

And egoism and altruism aren't mutually exclusive, either. An egoist can give to charity and help the poor for the warm, fuzzy feeling it gives them.

That's not altruism then. Altruism is compulsive.

[Caribica]

Well that's what we have laws for, just because I found a business doesn't mean it's above the law, I still need to follow the same laws as ordinary people

Well, one of those laws might dictate that your business has to serve everyone regardless of race/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity, so therefore you'd have to follow it.

Such a law concerning the first 2 would not be a problem for us but since Christians are being forced to accept a law that discriminates against us by forcing us to accept gay marriage as a part of life its unconstitutional, it would be like a law forcing Muslims to eat pork.

[Olerand]

They certainly can, however. What of the Phalanges in Spain and Catholicism, or the Maronite Church and the Phalanges of Lebanon?

Blue reactionaries painted black, all of them.
Spanish fascism died with José Antonio Primo de Rivera.

But they did their work with the blessing, very official blessing in Spain, of the Church.

[Jongy Like Jenga]

Kryptonite pot smokers? What?

Portmanteu of Crypto- and Kropotkinist.
But I like your explanation better.

Go kryptonite pot!

[Conscentia]

I always thought you were a democratic socialist just a bit further left than social democracy.

Oh. Yeah, I hung around there a bit (I don't keep track of it myself >.> ).

That was mostly influenced by being a member of the region I'm a member of, and of the Socialistische Partij. After (finally) reading the Communist Manifesto, and thinking, independently, for a while, I went full red

Oh, and the Socialistische Partij isn't really Socialistisch. I really should cancel my membership...

I always thought you were full red since I was new here, and merely acquired your hammer and sickle more recently.

[Atlanticatia]

Well, one of those laws might dictate that your business has to serve everyone regardless of race/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity, so therefore you'd have to follow it.

Such a law concerning the first 2 would not be a problem for us but since Christians are being forced to accept a law that discriminates against us by forcing us to accept gay marriage as a part of life its unconstitutional, it would be like a law forcing Muslims to eat pork.

No, it's really not similar at all. No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex nor attend the marriage. You can personally dislike it, just as a Muslim may not like eating pork. However, the Muslim has no problem with other people eating pork.

[Camelza]

Well the conservatives obviously were going to be strong and resist the far left rule of the Nazis so naturally the Nazis saw them as a problem, ever read stories of the Nazis retaliations towards resistance members families? Burned an entire village down, not even the children were spared

Conservatives, not Gaullists, collaborated. Gaullists resisted, and socialists/social democrats sometimes did too. Communists didn't, and collaborated up until the Nazi invasion of the USSR, after which they spearheaded the domestic French Resistance, as the Gaullists were still overseas.

You really don't have to tell me about Oradour-sur-Glane, I'm of the region. I know the story.

Once I'd claim too I know my region's history better than anyone else, but then Arch happened and I learned to respect other people's sources about my region's history.

[Olerand]

Conservatives, not Gaullists, collaborated. Gaullists resisted, and socialists/social democrats sometimes did too. Communists didn't, and collaborated up until the Nazi invasion of the USSR, after which they spearheaded the domestic French Resistance, as the Gaullists were still overseas.

You really don't have to tell me about Oradour-sur-Glane, I'm of the region. I know the story.

Once I'd claim too I know my region's history better than anyone else, but then Arch happened and I learned to respect other people's sources about my region's history.

That's awesome. I've been to the town, however, and walked its ruins with a tour guide. Short of some new book having been released in the last few years since I've been, there's nothing more to that tragic tale.

[Jongy Like Jenga]

Such a law concerning the first 2 would not be a problem for us but since Christians are being forced to accept a law that discriminates against us by forcing us to accept gay marriage as a part of life its unconstitutional, it would be like a law forcing Muslims to eat pork.

No, it's really not similar at all. No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex nor attend the marriage. You can personally dislike it, just as a Muslim may not like eating pork. However, the Muslim has no problem with other people eating pork.

[Fortschritte]

A lot of the time?
When egoism is based on the notion that each individual can only experience for themselves, it's not necessarily narcissistic.

Does not compute.

And egoism and altruism aren't mutually exclusive, either. An egoist can give to charity and help the poor for the warm, fuzzy feeling it gives them.

That's not altruism then. Altruism is compulsive.

Indeed. And, I wouldn't define altruism as merely helping others, or having even the slightest desire to help others.

[Caribica]

Such a law concerning the first 2 would not be a problem for us but since Christians are being forced to accept a law that discriminates against us by forcing us to accept gay marriage as a part of life its unconstitutional, it would be like a law forcing Muslims to eat pork.

No, it's really not similar at all. No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex nor attend the marriage. You can personally dislike it, just as a Muslim may not like eating pork. However, the Muslim has no problem with other people eating pork.

I see your point now, they shouldnt be forced to attend a gay wedding or pride parade but they shouldnt deny a cake to someone on the grounds that its for a gay wedding

[The Liberated Territories]

As it relates to philosophy, "truths" are anything that are inherent. There is an inherent truth in say, all men have the ability to think.

So you only prove the subjectivity of positive rights and ability for them to be taken away. Yet you have yet to deny me the objectivity of negative rights.

I have a negative right to think whatever thought I want about you, as I have the will to do it, and while a law may influence that it cannot take away it's inherence.

If one recognizes inherent-ness. I do not. Philosophies are varied, and cannot all be grouped together as "philosophy".
That is simply a biological fact, save for those with extreme developmental abilities.

There are no inherent rights. No objective rights. All rights are subjective, and depend on the person/society's recognition of them, or the Human documents granting them.

Sure you do. As long as you don't live in an oppressive State, and you are not discovered. I believe, by my tradition and values, that you have that right; clearly, that other State does not.

As of today, in 2014, the only "inherent" anything on this matter is the UN's UDHR, which is a document of international law, and applicable to all UN member-states.

So the fact that nobody may intrude in my mind no matter how hard they try does not match up to the definition of a negative right being "the ability to not be subjected to another person or group?" Your logic, I do not see it.

If rights are based on recognition, then if I terminate my agreement to recognize the rights (or laws) of the state, does it imply action or inaction? From what justification do you have to enforce your idea of rights? There is none. It boils down to the will of abstract entities who proclaim self ownership.

Contract; negative right (albeit one that violates other negative rights in the process).

[Camelza]

Blue reactionaries painted black, all of them.
Spanish fascism died with José Antonio Primo de Rivera.

But they did their work with the blessing, very official blessing in Spain, of the Church.

So? Civil wars are known for bringing together ideologically incopatible groups due to their common interests. Plus, the catholic church knew that the Falange's supporters were just carlists who drunk too much kool aid.

[Herrebrugh]

Oh. Yeah, I hung around there a bit (I don't keep track of it myself >.> ).

That was mostly influenced by being a member of the region I'm a member of, and of the Socialistische Partij. After (finally) reading the Communist Manifesto, and thinking, independently, for a while, I went full red

Oh, and the Socialistische Partij isn't really Socialistisch. I really should cancel my membership...

I always thought you were full red since I was new here, and merely acquired your hammer and sickle more recently.

Eh. In reality it hasn't changed a lot. I'm just more aware now what it is I'm actually supporting than I used to be.

[Mienon]

I'm surprised with all the Far-Lefts/Rights. I Hypothesized there would be more Center-Rights/Lefts.

Well, that's politics. A lot of people are radically in one direction, and refuse to even see the other side of the argument, just going to the side of the argument that applies to their affiliation.
Also, does anyone know why there are so few rightists? I assume that most of the people in NationState's age range (I'm guessing 14-college, though I don't have much information) are going to be leftists. Does anyone have any insight into this?

[Fortschritte]

Well, one of those laws might dictate that your business has to serve everyone regardless of race/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity, so therefore you'd have to follow it.

Such a law concerning the first 2 would not be a problem for us but since Christians are being forced to accept a law that discriminates against us by forcing us to accept gay marriage as a part of life its unconstitutional, it would be like a law forcing Muslims to eat pork.

Is anyone forcing you to get hitched to another man? Is there a law that requires you to drive to San Francisco, find a gay man, and get married? Your argument is invalid.

[Skinia]

Well, one of those laws might dictate that your business has to serve everyone regardless of race/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity, so therefore you'd have to follow it.

Such a law concerning the first 2 would not be a problem for us but since Christians are being forced to accept a law that discriminates against us by forcing us to accept gay marriage as a part of life its unconstitutional, it would be like a law forcing Muslims to eat pork.

Oh no, someone's forcing people treat a minority as people! Duck and cover, the Obamanazis are coming!

[Caribica]

Well the conservatives obviously were going to be strong and resist the far left rule of the Nazis so naturally the Nazis saw them as a problem, ever read stories of the Nazis retaliations towards resistance members families? Burned an entire village down, not even the children were spared

Conservatives, not Gaullists, collaborated. Gaullists resisted, and socialists/social democrats sometimes did too. Communists didn't, and collaborated up until the Nazi invasion of the USSR, after which they spearheaded the domestic French Resistance, as the Gaullists were still overseas.

You really don't have to tell me about Oradour-sur-Glane, I'm of the region. I know the story.

Alright then, sorry to offend you but the Nazis were obviously Leftist. Anti-civilian gun ownership, pro animal rights, anti religion for gods sake they were named the National SOCIALIST Party therefore conservatives would not have sided with Nazis.

[Fanosolia]

No, it's really not similar at all. No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex nor attend the marriage. You can personally dislike it, just as a Muslim may not like eating pork. However, the Muslim has no problem with other people eating pork.

I see your point now, they shouldnt be forced to attend a gay wedding or pride parade but they shouldnt deny a cake to someone on the grounds that its for a gay wedding

1. Not like they need to know what type of wedding it is.

2. Money is money. It makes no sense from a business standpoint to deny them that.

[Skinia]

Conservatives, not Gaullists, collaborated. Gaullists resisted, and socialists/social democrats sometimes did too. Communists didn't, and collaborated up until the Nazi invasion of the USSR, after which they spearheaded the domestic French Resistance, as the Gaullists were still overseas.

You really don't have to tell me about Oradour-sur-Glane, I'm of the region. I know the story.

Alright then, sorry to offend you but the Nazis were obviously Leftist. Anti-civilian gun ownership, pro animal rights, anti religion for gods sake they were named the National SOCIALIST Party therefore conservatives would not have sided with Nazis.

Yeah, none of that has anything to do with leftism. Get your head outta your ass.

[Waldriech]

Ello,

[Olerand]

So the fact that nobody may intrude in my mind no matter how hard they try does not match up to the definition of a negative right being "the ability to not be subjected to another person or group?" Your logic, I do not see it.

If rights are based on recognition, then if I terminate my agreement to recognize the rights (or laws) of the state, does it imply action or inaction? From what justification do you have to enforce your idea of rights? There is none. It boils down to the will of abstract entities who proclaim self ownership.

Contract; negative right (albeit one that violates other negative rights in the process).

I never claimed anything about negative rights. I simply declared I do not recognize their existence.

Action. You have decided, and acted, to reject your social contract with the State/society that you inhabit. Chances are, you will be punished accordingly.
None. Force, as is always the case in the real world. Abstract ideas and lofty ideologies don't make a State, nor enforce its laws. Force does.

Yes. All rights are given by contract. Or at least societal recognition.

[Fortschritte]

Conservatives, not Gaullists, collaborated. Gaullists resisted, and socialists/social democrats sometimes did too. Communists didn't, and collaborated up until the Nazi invasion of the USSR, after which they spearheaded the domestic French Resistance, as the Gaullists were still overseas.

You really don't have to tell me about Oradour-sur-Glane, I'm of the region. I know the story.

Alright then, sorry to offend you but the Nazis were obviously Leftist. Anti-civilian gun ownership, pro animal rights, anti religion for gods sake they were named the National SOCIALIST Party therefore conservatives would not have sided with Nazis.

Are you kidding?

Do you have any idea as to what the far right is? Because, it appears to me that you do not understand the political spectrum in the slightest, and instead live in a hyper-conservative echo chamber riddled with preconceptions, fallacies, and bogus.

The name of the party is irreverent. They supported economic corporatism, ethnic nationalism, and staunch social conservatism, which is very, very right wing.