Ideal for a New Leftist Movement

[Yusseria]

kind of just sounds like Maoist China but okay.

[The New California Republic]

It does treat homosexuals differently, as it would effectively be a ban on all sex for them if only procreative sex was allowed.

If Humanity was on gender, and could mate and reproduce with all individuals, then True gender and sexual freedom has been achieved. Sadly, that is unlikely for a Mammal. Reproductive sex is the only thing sex was made for. Survival of a species was determined by all complexities of reproductive parents.

You can't force homosexual people to become straight.

---

It disproportionately affects homosexuals, surely you can see that?

Ofcourse it will affect homosexuality, But all sexually diverse behaviors will be affect.

But homosexuals will be disproportionately affected by a ban on non-procreative sex. Please don't make me repeat it yet again.

---

Nature is not conscious. It is incapable of liking or hating things.

When I mean "Hate", I mean forces. Nature forces everything to continue it's existence, and the opposite is death. Nature forces the disabled to die or suffer, nature forces life to compete with it's self. It's best thing was creating mankind, and mankind realize the flaws of nature. Since nature forces all to it's will, then nature shouldn't be our friend. Nature sometime makes mistakes, and this mistake can teach us a lot about the flaws of existence. There is no need to hate the deviants, but to examine it's role in existence.

Nature does not have will.

---

Wrong. It creates a bond between people, feels good, and relieves tension.

Feelings are not always good. Like all things human, feelings are flawed. There are other ways of removing tension.In the end, the universe is a careless machine that makes things be a certain way.

Why do you think that having sex because it feels good is bad? You haven't explained that except to say vague things like "feelings are flawed".

---

And you still haven't mentioned how the ban on non-procreative sex would be enforced.

The Ban would be done as all banned things are treated.However,this does not actually mean a socially conservative society.Birth control would be allowed, and abortion will be used for all forms of health issues and undesirable situations.Though I'm still pro-natalist.Reproduction should be encourage ,though asexuals and other "Virigins" shouldn't be force to be in a relionship.Also abortion focus should be focus on the prevention of harmful mutations.I also beleive their should be resarch on human sexuality.

None of that says how you propose to stop people from engaging in non-procreative sex.

[Communal concils]

Good

Then on the whole I think I can stand behind this

This whole private sector economy thing is awful

Watch as IM gets converted to state capitalism

I am a socialist. I wouldn't be angry for workers controlling factories, and syndicates won't be bothered. A Centrally planned Economy is socialist as long as it is used for the whole population. Social ownership of the means of productions is my belief. I just advocate for a quick way of giving people jobs and a better system.
I also believe in the abolishment of rent and use of resources for allowing a diverse amount of jobs. Scientific research should be funded, medication and education as well. State Capitalism is a term use to discredit actual economic reforms. I support something more realistic than a "place in which people share everything". That system has done more than any Anarcho-Communist or "Social" Democrat system.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

I am a socialist. I wouldn't be angry for workers controlling factories, and syndicates won't be bothered. A Centrally planned Economy is socialist as long as it is used for the whole population. Social ownership of the means of productions is my belief. I just advocate for a quick way of giving people jobs and a better system.
I also believe in the abolishment of rent and use of resources for allowing a diverse amount of jobs. Scientific research should be funded, medication and education as well. State Capitalism is a term use to discredit actual economic reforms. I support something more realistic than a "place in which people share everything". That system has done more than any Anarcho-Communist or "Social" Democrat system.

That’s what they all say.

[Communal concils]

If Humanity was on gender, and could mate and reproduce with all individuals, then True gender and sexual freedom has been achieved. Sadly, that is unlikely for a Mammal. Reproductive sex is the only thing sex was made for. Survival of a species was determined by all complexities of reproductive parents.

You can't force homosexual people to become straight.

---

Ofcourse it will affect homosexuality, But all sexually diverse behaviors will be affect.

But homosexuals will be disproportionately affected by a ban on non-procreative sex. Please don't make me repeat it yet again.

---

When I mean "Hate", I mean forces. Nature forces everything to continue it's existence, and the opposite is death. Nature forces the disabled to die or suffer, nature forces life to compete with it's self. It's best thing was creating mankind, and mankind realize the flaws of nature. Since nature forces all to it's will, then nature shouldn't be our friend. Nature sometime makes mistakes, and this mistake can teach us a lot about the flaws of existence. There is no need to hate the deviants, but to examine it's role in existence.

Nature does not have will.

---

Feelings are not always good. Like all things human, feelings are flawed. There are other ways of removing tension.In the end, the universe is a careless machine that makes things be a certain way.

Why do you think that having sex because it feels good is bad? You haven't explained that except to say vague things like "feelings are flawed".

---

The Ban would be done as all banned things are treated.However,this does not actually mean a socially conservative society.Birth control would be allowed, and abortion will be used for all forms of health issues and undesirable situations.Though I'm still pro-natalist.Reproduction should be encourage ,though asexuals and other "Virigins" shouldn't be force to be in a relionship.Also abortion focus should be focus on the prevention of harmful mutations.I also beleive their should be resarch on human sexuality.

None of that says how you propose to stop people from engaging in non-procreative sex.

1.I don't believe in the needs for a "Reconversion" camp.I thought that maybe other non-reproductive groups would be respresented

2.I didn't deny that they will be completely be affected, but every other desire would be treated the same.I Wouldn't even accept the behaviors of all "Straight" people.


3.I don't actually treat nature as a self aware omnipresent force.It's a metaphor.


4.Pleasure shouldn't be seen as the meaning to life.To put pleasure as the objective of things is mentally "Blinding".People ignore the harms or consequences of things.All events can lead to others,therefor it's important to think of all possibilities.The Lesbian,Gay,bisexual and Transgender communities suffer from health issues.This is only because of society.Individuals are affected by their enviroments,as well as the groups they join.Homosexuality isn't the issue,but rather the sorrounding things.

5.Actually it does. All sex should be shifted towards Natalism. The Ban will be treated as any other law, and that is through the state's apparatus. However this does not actually create a Socially Conservative society, but rather as a way for the creation of a "New Man and Women." It's a Society that seeks to limit unneeded suffering, like disease and rape. The best way of stopping that is for the restrictions of These desire. Everything I mention in terms of "sexual freedoms" is to find a solution to Humanities primitive remnants. This requires Coercion, a 'New Sexual Revolution".

[Communal concils]

I am a socialist. I wouldn't be angry for workers controlling factories, and syndicates won't be bothered. A Centrally planned Economy is socialist as long as it is used for the whole population. Social ownership of the means of productions is my belief. I just advocate for a quick way of giving people jobs and a better system.
I also believe in the abolishment of rent and use of resources for allowing a diverse amount of jobs. Scientific research should be funded, medication and education as well. State Capitalism is a term use to discredit actual economic reforms. I support something more realistic than a "place in which people share everything". That system has done more than any Anarcho-Communist or "Social" Democrat system.

That’s what they all say.

The same can be said for all socialist.

[The New California Republic]

You can't force homosexual people to become straight.

I don't believe in the needs for a "Reconversion" camp.I thought that maybe other non-reproductive groups would be respresented.

That doesn't really respond to what I have said.

---

But homosexuals will be disproportionately affected by a ban on non-procreative sex. Please don't make me repeat it yet again.

I didn't deny that they will be completely be affected, but every other desire would be treated the same.I Wouldn't even accept the behaviors of all "Straight" people.

Straight people will be allowed to have sex. Homosexual people won't. That's what your system comes down to.

---

Nature does not have will.

I don't actually treat nature as a selfi aware omnipresent force.It's a metaphor.

You said that nature hates homosexual people. In order for something to hate it needs to be sentient. I don't believe for a second that it is all just metaphors, as your wording was very specific.

---

Why do you think that having sex because it feels good is bad? You haven't explained that except to say vague things like "feelings are flawed".

Pleasure shouldn't be seen as the meaning to life.To put pleasure as the objective of things is mentally "Blinding".People ignore the harms or consequences of things.All events can lead to others,therefor it's important to think of all possibilities.

I didn't say that pleasure was the meaning of life, I said that "you think that having sex because it feels good is bad". And please provide evidence that it is a universal fact that people ignore harms or consequences when engaging in pleasurable sex.

---

The Lesbian,Gay,bisexual and Transgender communities suffer from health issues.

So that is reason enough to ban them from having sex? Are you serious?

---

None of that says how you propose to stop people from engaging in non-procreative sex.

Actually it does. All sex should be shifted towards Natalism. The Ban will be treated as any other law, and that is through the state's apparatus. However this does not actually create a Socially Conservative society, but rather as a way for the creation of a "New Man and Women." It's a Society that seeks to limit unneeded suffering, like disease and rape. The best way of stopping that is for the restrictions of These desire. Everything I mention in terms of "sexual freedoms" is to find a solution to Humanities primitive remnants. This requires Coercion, a 'New Sexual Revolution".

Again, none of that gives specifics about how the ban on non-procreative sex will be enforced.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

The same can be said for all socialist.

You say you want to serve the population, but you also say that people should only exist to serve the state.

[The New Teutonic Order]

1. "Bloodshed based on politics" hasn't happened in "The West" since the Cold War at most, and it hasn't happened in the US since 1865. There are some riots, but they're far from any actual revolt.

2. In fact, the west has cracked down on racism SIGNIFICANTLY.

3. There is no proof that the west is "slowly killing itself". Right now, it is the dominant region in the world, and nations that want to become powerful (like China and India) embrace Western traditions, and that shows no signs of stopping.

4. With what you believe, I'm glad that what you think of as "reforms" are held back.

5. You are correct. Every petty ideal is respected, and every claim is allowed. It's called free speech.

6. If you manage to win a presidential election in the West, then we can talk about implementing your system. But apparently most people are too uneducated to have a say in politics, so the will of the people must not be that important.

1.Bloodshed happened in the united states long after the civil war. The Civil rights movement was filled with violence and spilled blood. United states as a republic allowed for it to happen for a while.

2.Racism is rising again. Far-right movements are increasing, and places like Sweden are examples of this.
3.The constant military interventions have made a majority of the world hate it. along with that, many European nations depend on America for military support. In terms for China, it is not holding western traditions. There in no liberal democracy, and the country has it's own values. India is a nation with so much poverty. It has the caste system, and India has not done well as China.

4.Revolution is sometimes the best option instead of reform.


5.Free speech allowed for antivaxxers, The Flat-Earthers, and the conspiracy theory of the "Great Replacement".



6.People will vote for things that sound good, and that's their mistake.This can be used as a way of gaining power,then reform can happen.Rapid reform will really happen.

1. Bloodshed has occured, but way less than dictatorial countries, and nothing to the scale of mass executions.

2. Sweden is one of if not the most progressive places in the world. Try again.

3. America's military interventions do give it a bad reputation, but that's on the basis of America going and intervening in other countries for decades, which has almost nothing to do with its political system.
China has embraced Western values (i.e. capitalism), and they're prospering because of it. India doesn't have the caste system any more and it's been replaced with western democracy, and that democracy is beginning to lift people out of poverty.

4. You're dead wrong. Most revolutions cost blood, while in the West, reform can be made through peace and democracy, along with the will of the people.

5. Yes. I'm also shocked that you would persecute the Flat Earth society. They aren't actively discriminating against or harming anyone with their views.

6. People are stupid because they vote for what's best for them. Also, you just admitted that under a democratic system, "rapid reform will happen", so what's the problem with democracies?

[Communal concils]

I don't believe in the needs for a "Reconversion" camp.I thought that maybe other non-reproductive groups would be respresented.

That doesn't really respond to what I have said.

---

I didn't deny that they will be completely be affected, but every other desire would be treated the same.I Wouldn't even accept the behaviors of all "Straight" people.

Straight people will be allowed to have sex. Homosexual people won't. That's what your system comes down to.

---

I don't actually treat nature as a selfi aware omnipresent force.It's a metaphor.

You said that nature hates homosexual people. In order for something to hate it needs to be sentient. I don't believe for a second that it is all just metaphors, as your wording was very specific.

---

Pleasure shouldn't be seen as the meaning to life.To put pleasure as the objective of things is mentally "Blinding".People ignore the harms or consequences of things.All events can lead to others,therefor it's important to think of all possibilities.

I didn't say that pleasure was the meaning of life, I said that "you think that having sex because it feels good is bad". And please provide evidence that it is a universal fact that people ignore harms or consequences when engaging in pleasurable sex.

---

The Lesbian,Gay,bisexual and Transgender communities suffer from health issues.

So that is reason enough to ban them from having sex? Are you serious?

---

Actually it does. All sex should be shifted towards Natalism. The Ban will be treated as any other law, and that is through the state's apparatus. However this does not actually create a Socially Conservative society, but rather as a way for the creation of a "New Man and Women." It's a Society that seeks to limit unneeded suffering, like disease and rape. The best way of stopping that is for the restrictions of These desire. Everything I mention in terms of "sexual freedoms" is to find a solution to Humanities primitive remnants. This requires Coercion, a 'New Sexual Revolution".

Again, none of that gives specifics about how the ban on non-procreative sex will be enforced.

1.Okay,I find no need for reconversion camps. It isn't scientific and does not come even close to it's goals. Plus, it tortures the individuals involved. I don't seek to turn homosexuals straight, because that wouldn't solve anything for the society I propose. Rather, the behaviors of people universally should be limited. Heterosexuals would be limited to only reproductive sex, but it wouldn't be seen as very positive in any way other than the creation of life.

2.It goes beyond that. It's foolish to reject reproductive sex, and it is propose as a way to prevent anyone from doing self harm.



3.okay,sorry if I wasn't explaining in the best way.


4.Said it will be enforce by force, And the state should discourage behaviors through the means of propaganda(not all propaganda is bad, it is art to convince others of an opinion).

[Kernen]

That doesn't really respond to what I have said.

---

Straight people will be allowed to have sex. Homosexual people won't. That's what your system comes down to.

---

You said that nature hates homosexual people. In order for something to hate it needs to be sentient. I don't believe for a second that it is all just metaphors, as your wording was very specific.

---

I didn't say that pleasure was the meaning of life, I said that "you think that having sex because it feels good is bad". And please provide evidence that it is a universal fact that people ignore harms or consequences when engaging in pleasurable sex.

---

So that is reason enough to ban them from having sex? Are you serious?

---

Again, none of that gives specifics about how the ban on non-procreative sex will be enforced.

1.Okay,I find no need for reconversion camps. It isn't scientific and does not come even close to it's goals. Plus, it tortures the individuals involved. I don't seek to turn homosexuals straight, because that wouldn't solve anything for the society I propose. Rather, the behaviors of people universally should be limited. Heterosexuals would be limited to only reproductive sex, but it wouldn't be seen as very positive in any way other than the creation of life.

2.It goes beyond that. It's foolish to reject reproductive sex, and it is propose as a way to prevent anyone from doing self harm.



3.okay,sorry if I wasn't explaining in the best way.


4.Said it will be enforce by force, And the state should discourage behaviors through the means of propaganda(not all propaganda is bad, it is art to convince others of an opinion).

You lost once you tried to reign in nonreproductive sex. Nobody will consent to that.

[The New California Republic]

It's foolish to reject reproductive sex, and it is propose as a way to prevent anyone from doing self harm.

It is foolish for homosexuals to not want to participate in reproductive sex? What?

4.Said it will be enforce by force, And the state should discourage behaviors through the means of propaganda(not all propaganda is bad, it is art to convince others of an opinion).

How will you know when people are engaging in non-procreative sex? Enforcement requires a knowledge of who is breaking the rules. So far you have given no hints as to how the state will find out if people are engaging in non-reproductive sex.

[Ardoki]

I have some major criticisms with this idea:

1. Planned economies are not a good choice. Mixed economies are great. You get prosperity and equality.

(Image)

2. Consumerism and capitalist culture isn't all bad. Nice stuff can be awesome.

3. Populism is bad. It leads to all sorts of crazy things, like Trump, Brexit, etc.

4. Violence is bad. Coups and revolutions are not okay.

5. Progress is good. You shouldn't be tied down to a single ideology. Find out what works, and adapt it. And keep looking for stuff which which works, or would be an improvement, and adapt that. Then just keep going like this. FOREVER!!! As long as you follow this one step plan, eternal universal domination can be yours!

6. Religion is reactionary, nationalism is divisive. Just use progress to unite everyone towards the common goal of... progression.

1.However,planned economies make production go to it's most extreme forms. Planned economies are good at making poor countries develop infrastructure. South Korea did well from massive production planned by the state, and the French recovered from the second World War with a Command Economy called Dirigisme. It is the best way of getting people employed because the state will give jobs under that economy.

2.Consumerism leads to over consumption, and that is not the best thing to do with finite resources.


3.Populism is the best tool of gain power.To raise the populous aginst the elites of society is the desire of all types of progressives. Also the European union is better of dissolved, that is until a better confederation can be created.

4.All states have a monopoly on violence.This is why Police exist, to prevent the breaking of laws.Coups and Revolutions can sometimes be the quickest way to reforms.The Tsars rruined there legitimacy with failed military plans, which allowed for the october revolution to happen. Russia to day is at least not as backwards as it's neighbors.

5.I actually like the ideal of cooperating with other ideologies. "Big Tent" concept makes sense to me. A
single political party with several ideologies with in seems like a good concept.


6.Religion will never die(unless humanity does).It has existed, since the first of our species. Even Neanderthals had a religion(shamanism surrounding Bears).Even if there was proof of no Deity, their will be another thing to venerate and worship.(promise land, a powerful Man, and a great force to control).Eastern religions don't always focus on deities(unless it's a folk religion or an animalist one),but on a form of desirable human. It's not reactionary, because it's always change form. Just look at a list of several forms of Christianity destroyed by the Nicene church.Nationalism always exist.It only helps to destroy one type with another.Progress is accepting that things evolve,sometime to the point of nolonger being the original thing.

1. South Korea and France have never had planned economies (especially not the command variant). They had and still have mixed economies. Does this look like a command economy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme It shouldn't.

3. No. The goal of progressives is to advance progress. It has nothing to do with populism. Throughout history, the masses have stood in the way of progress and delayed it for significant amounts of time. Just look at how long it took for marriage equality to be legalised. Just look at how people are against fighting climate change in the US. It is far easier for the government to advance progress. Whether it is popular among the people is irrelevant.

4. Coups and revolutions are illegitimate. Especially when it would be reactionary, like what your ideology is.

[Communal concils]

1.Bloodshed happened in the united states long after the civil war. The Civil rights movement was filled with violence and spilled blood. United states as a republic allowed for it to happen for a while.

2.Racism is rising again. Far-right movements are increasing, and places like Sweden are examples of this.
3.The constant military interventions have made a majority of the world hate it. along with that, many European nations depend on America for military support. In terms for China, it is not holding western traditions. There in no liberal democracy, and the country has it's own values. India is a nation with so much poverty. It has the caste system, and India has not done well as China.

4.Revolution is sometimes the best option instead of reform.


5.Free speech allowed for antivaxxers, The Flat-Earthers, and the conspiracy theory of the "Great Replacement".



6.People will vote for things that sound good, and that's their mistake.This can be used as a way of gaining power,then reform can happen.Rapid reform will really happen.

1. Bloodshed has occured, but way less than dictatorial countries, and nothing to the scale of mass executions.

2. Sweden is one of if not the most progressive places in the world. Try again.

3. America's military interventions do give it a bad reputation, but that's on the basis of America going and intervening in other countries for decades, which has almost nothing to do with its political system.
China has embraced Western values (i.e. capitalism), and they're prospering because of it. India doesn't have the caste system any more and it's been replaced with western democracy, and that democracy is beginning to lift people out of poverty.

4. You're dead wrong. Most revolutions cost blood, while in the West, reform can be made through peace and democracy, along with the will of the people.

5. Yes. I'm also shocked that you would persecute the Flat Earth society. They aren't actively discriminating against or harming anyone with their views.

6. People are stupid because they vote for what's best for them. Also, you just admitted that under a democratic system, "rapid reform will happen", so what's the problem with democracies?

1.Democracy happened through the persecution of the old order. The Patriots during the American revolution persecuted colonist loyal to Britain. The February Revolution(not October revolution) can with force, but such western style system was too weak to do anything. There is also the Weimer Republic. The NDAP was elected through the representative Democracy. There was force, but Their was enough people to support the creation of Nazi Germany.

2.Sweden's "Progressivism" is suffering from a mass wave of Xenophobia. If anything, it's slowly dying with out a good enough reacting. Not only that, but prices have increased.

3.Ofcourse foreign policy has affects on it's political system. Military spending shouldn't be too much, and all that funding would be better used in the domestic issue's of the republic.
What are china's "Western Values"? The "Democracy" of india is a corrupt one.The countres inhabitance has issue's with disease, poverty and racism.Millions are affected in the country.All of it's "Western" inspirations were from a country that killed it's own people, the British Empire.

4.The will of people is divided.It's also has differant concepts of "Peace".The Refroms are not making long term changes.Not all revolutions are good, and reformation is not always desirable.

5.Yes there are Flat Earthers that harm themselves and others. Such conspiracies can lead to even more threating ones. Why must I respect the rejection of reality in others. If they feel happy from it, then they need Mental help! There is also The "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, which has already urge others to kill.

6.Majority is sometimes right, but it is sometimes very wrong. People would be scared of things they don't understand, people will even accept the poor conditions of others,(and even themselves).Yes, people are stupid for wanting what they think is the "Best" choice, but they are not always wrong. I explained that the issue is that it takes long for actually meaningful reforms(not just reforms, but reforms that last long).The True problem of Democracy is that it is ineffective at making progress. Unneeded policies mess the people up, arguments instead of action happen. Most important, their are some events that will break it.It maybe war, it maybe riots and corruption, but there will be a massive event to kill it.

[Communal concils]

1.However,planned economies make production go to it's most extreme forms. Planned economies are good at making poor countries develop infrastructure. South Korea did well from massive production planned by the state, and the French recovered from the second World War with a Command Economy called Dirigisme. It is the best way of getting people employed because the state will give jobs under that economy.

2.Consumerism leads to over consumption, and that is not the best thing to do with finite resources.


3.Populism is the best tool of gain power.To raise the populous aginst the elites of society is the desire of all types of progressives. Also the European union is better of dissolved, that is until a better confederation can be created.

4.All states have a monopoly on violence.This is why Police exist, to prevent the breaking of laws.Coups and Revolutions can sometimes be the quickest way to reforms.The Tsars rruined there legitimacy with failed military plans, which allowed for the october revolution to happen. Russia to day is at least not as backwards as it's neighbors.

5.I actually like the ideal of cooperating with other ideologies. "Big Tent" concept makes sense to me. A
single political party with several ideologies with in seems like a good concept.


6.Religion will never die(unless humanity does).It has existed, since the first of our species. Even Neanderthals had a religion(shamanism surrounding Bears).Even if there was proof of no Deity, their will be another thing to venerate and worship.(promise land, a powerful Man, and a great force to control).Eastern religions don't always focus on deities(unless it's a folk religion or an animalist one),but on a form of desirable human. It's not reactionary, because it's always change form. Just look at a list of several forms of Christianity destroyed by the Nicene church.Nationalism always exist.It only helps to destroy one type with another.Progress is accepting that things evolve,sometime to the point of nolonger being the original thing.

1. South Korea and France have never had planned economies (especially not the command variant). They had and still have mixed economies. Does this look like a command economy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme It shouldn't.

3. No. The goal of progressives is to advance progress. It has nothing to do with populism. Throughout history, the masses have stood in the way of progress and delayed it for significant amounts of time. Just look at how long it took for marriage equality to be legalised. Just look at how people are against fighting climate change in the US. It is far easier for the government to advance progress. Whether it is popular among the people is irrelevant.

4. Coups and revolutions are illegitimate. Especially when it would be reactionary, like what your ideology is.

1.South Korea Had a Five-year plan policy. The French Government did had a planned economy (though it's not to the extent in which I recommend).



3.The Masses can be convince of many things. Gaining power is done best with making deals with the population, a popular uprising requires support. Voting and other forms of methods to power require it.Yes I'm against the Liberal form of "Progress", but that does not make me a reactionary. I don't seek to go back to the "Good old days". I want to create a newer system. The Reactionary is what all Conservatives are. You can't be a conservative until the status quo is preserved under you, but I reject those things. I want to destroy the old order, and make an evolved version of society. Coups and revolutions are okay in situations in which enemy ruins all conditions for a good life.

[Ardoki]

1. South Korea and France have never had planned economies (especially not the command variant). They had and still have mixed economies. Does this look like a command economy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme It shouldn't.

3. No. The goal of progressives is to advance progress. It has nothing to do with populism. Throughout history, the masses have stood in the way of progress and delayed it for significant amounts of time. Just look at how long it took for marriage equality to be legalised. Just look at how people are against fighting climate change in the US. It is far easier for the government to advance progress. Whether it is popular among the people is irrelevant.

4. Coups and revolutions are illegitimate. Especially when it would be reactionary, like what your ideology is.

1.South Korea Had a Five-year plan policy. The French Government did had a planned economy (though it's not to the extent in which I recommend).



3.The Masses can be convince of many things. Gaining power is done best with making deals with the population, a popular uprising requires support. Voting and other forms of methods to power require it.Yes I'm against the Liberal form of "Progress", but that does not make me a reactionary. I don't seek to go back to the "Good old days". I want to create a newer system. The Reactionary is what all Conservatives are. You can't be a conservative until the status quo is preserved under you, but I reject those things. I want to destroy the old order, and make an evolved version of society. Coups and revolutions are okay in situations in which enemy ruins all conditions for a good life.

I'm a social democrat. But liberalism and capitalism are progressive, even Marx admitted this.

Progress is an idea, not an ideology.

[Communal concils]

1.South Korea Had a Five-year plan policy. The French Government did had a planned economy (though it's not to the extent in which I recommend).



3.The Masses can be convince of many things. Gaining power is done best with making deals with the population, a popular uprising requires support. Voting and other forms of methods to power require it.Yes I'm against the Liberal form of "Progress", but that does not make me a reactionary. I don't seek to go back to the "Good old days". I want to create a newer system. The Reactionary is what all Conservatives are. You can't be a conservative until the status quo is preserved under you, but I reject those things. I want to destroy the old order, and make an evolved version of society. Coups and revolutions are okay in situations in which enemy ruins all conditions for a good life.

I'm a social democrat. But liberalism and capitalism are progressive, even Marx admitted this.

Progress is an idea, not an ideology.

Ideologies are ideals.

[Rio Cana]

OP said

The Working class aren't educated enough to control the state. There needs to be a responsible Oligarchy. One that challenges it's opposition, but also cleans it's self. This Oligarchy must be lead by a single party, and this party must lead a republic of self restriction .It should also consolidate power.

So he wants a dictatorship/Junta in control of everything how nice, not. You just know in such a nation something like the following would pop up against the so called dictatorship/Junta - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReOsv_z7Zgk

[Communal concils]

OP said

The Working class aren't educated enough to control the state. There needs to be a responsible Oligarchy. One that challenges it's opposition, but also cleans it's self. This Oligarchy must be lead by a single party, and this party must lead a republic of self restriction .It should also consolidate power.

So he wants a dictatorship/Junta in control of everything how nice, not. You just know in such a nation something like the following would pop up against the so called dictatorship/Junta - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReOsv_z7Zgk

That depends on the Nation. I think that such a system should act different depending on the countries conditions. However, I would rather a civilian Government over a Military one.

[Cedoria]

Sounds like you're advocating 'Socialism in One Country'.

Hate to break it to you mate, but that isn't a new leftist movement idea. It was Stalin's whole deal.

There have been other socialist movements that supported the things I do. Jacobins;Banquist, Baathist and some utopian socialist supported these things,And their are several parties that hold elements of what I support. It's New in that it seeks to combine fundamental aspects of other ideologies.Ofcourse I also can't exclude the majority of Marxist-Leninist.

It's not new, it's literally Fascism with a red face. That's been done plenty of times before.

I suspect you are aware enough to know this and are using it mainly as a soapbox, but never mind.

And Baathism? Urgh, just, urgh.

[Communal concils]

There have been other socialist movements that supported the things I do. Jacobins;Banquist, Baathist and some utopian socialist supported these things,And their are several parties that hold elements of what I support. It's New in that it seeks to combine fundamental aspects of other ideologies.Ofcourse I also can't exclude the majority of Marxist-Leninist.

It's not new, it's literally Fascism with a red face. That's been done plenty of times before.

I suspect you are aware enough to know this and are using it mainly as a soapbox, but never mind.

And Baathism? Urgh, just, urgh.

People called nearly all types of state socialist "Red fascism".Economically, I have a completely different view from them. Socially, their are lot's of fundamental differences. I am a egalitarian in economic and social terms. All people are to supposed to be equal. To reach this, destroying the old order is a requirement. Fascism reimagines the old, but I seek obliteration of the old society. What kind of fascist believes in the destruction of gender roles, and seeks to form policies for the population as a whole.

[The New Teutonic Order]

1. Bloodshed has occured, but way less than dictatorial countries, and nothing to the scale of mass executions.

2. Sweden is one of if not the most progressive places in the world. Try again.

3. America's military interventions do give it a bad reputation, but that's on the basis of America going and intervening in other countries for decades, which has almost nothing to do with its political system.
China has embraced Western values (i.e. capitalism), and they're prospering because of it. India doesn't have the caste system any more and it's been replaced with western democracy, and that democracy is beginning to lift people out of poverty.

4. You're dead wrong. Most revolutions cost blood, while in the West, reform can be made through peace and democracy, along with the will of the people.

5. Yes. I'm also shocked that you would persecute the Flat Earth society. They aren't actively discriminating against or harming anyone with their views.

6. People are stupid because they vote for what's best for them. Also, you just admitted that under a democratic system, "rapid reform will happen", so what's the problem with democracies?

1.Democracy happened through the persecution of the old order. The Patriots during the American revolution persecuted colonist loyal to Britain. The February Revolution(not October revolution) can with force, but such western style system was too weak to do anything. There is also the Weimer Republic. The NDAP was elected through the representative Democracy. There was force, but Their was enough people to support the creation of Nazi Germany.

2.Sweden's "Progressivism" is suffering from a mass wave of Xenophobia. If anything, it's slowly dying with out a good enough reacting. Not only that, but prices have increased.

3.Ofcourse foreign policy has affects on it's political system. Military spending shouldn't be too much, and all that funding would be better used in the domestic issue's of the republic.
What are china's "Western Values"? The "Democracy" of india is a corrupt one.The countres inhabitance has issue's with disease, poverty and racism.Millions are affected in the country.All of it's "Western" inspirations were from a country that killed it's own people, the British Empire.

4.The will of people is divided.It's also has differant concepts of "Peace".The Refroms are not making long term changes.Not all revolutions are good, and reformation is not always desirable.

5.Yes there are Flat Earthers that harm themselves and others. Such conspiracies can lead to even more threating ones. Why must I respect the rejection of reality in others. If they feel happy from it, then they need Mental help! There is also The "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, which has already urge others to kill.

6.Majority is sometimes right, but it is sometimes very wrong. People would be scared of things they don't understand, people will even accept the poor conditions of others,(and even themselves).Yes, people are stupid for wanting what they think is the "Best" choice, but they are not always wrong. I explained that the issue is that it takes long for actually meaningful reforms(not just reforms, but reforms that last long).The True problem of Democracy is that it is ineffective at making progress. Unneeded policies mess the people up, arguments instead of action happen. Most important, their are some events that will break it.It maybe war, it maybe riots and corruption, but there will be a massive event to kill it.

1. It is true that some democracies required revolutions to come into being. However, after the Revolution, the Loyalists who decided to not flee America were treated well and as American citizens. If you were in charge, you would probably have them killed for thought-crime.

2. Sweden is a progressive nation, and one of the most leftist nations on the Earth, and people are naturally protesting against it. Sweden is indeed a failing state. However, my point still stands that racism is on the decline in most places on Earth, especially those with reasonable democracies that don't try to go all-in on leftist ideals.

3. I agree that America shouldn't spend as much on its military, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the thing that people like most about America is its democracy and what it stands for.
China's western values are values of capitalism and values of the free market. It is taking them a while to adjust to western traditions, but they are doing it, and because of it they are prospering. India, on the other hand, is corrupt, but not nearly as corrupt as dictatorships around the world.

4. I know that it's such a shock that people have opinions. Also, you yourself said that "Not all revolutions are good, and reformation is not always desirable." Ironically, your own ideology is a perfect example of this. Just pointing that out.

5. I agree that there are some intellectual movements that are dangerous. However, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be tolerated. Also, believing that the earth is flat isn't harming anybody.

6. Democracy is the best system because it accomodates those of all kinds of political beliefs. The arguments that you say hold democracies back allow them to stay restrained, and keep as many people as happy as possible. There are many people, including me, who disagree with you, and they are not stupid to believe that, just as you aren't stupid for believing in your ideals. However, you have no right to decide what is good or bad for others. Whatever the people vote for is the best for society, as it is supported by the people. As for the massive event that kills democracy, I'm still waiting.

[Doing it Rightland]

People called nearly all types of state socialist "Red fascism".Economically, I have a completely different view from them. Socially, their are lot's of fundamental differences. I am a egalitarian in economic and social terms. All people are to supposed to be equal. To reach this, destroying the old order is a requirement. Fascism reimagines the old, but I seek obliteration of the old society. What kind of fascist believes in the destruction of gender roles, and seeks to form policies for the population as a whole.

1) Economically, in both fascism and socialism the government planned the economy to a rather high degree. Hitler did it. Mussolini tried it (and botched it). Stalin and Mao both did it.

2) Yes, all people should be equally poor, equally enslaved to your oligarchic ruling elites.

3) You ask for obliteration of the old. Yet you're just bringing the old back. Think about this:

• A large mass of less-educated peoples controlling the means of productions and working together, not owning property, to drive the economy.
• A group of elites through which governance occurs and through which all the wealth passes through for redistribution.

This isn't a new order. It's literally feudalism. You have the peasants who control the tools and animals, the means of production. You have the lords, who manage and distribute the wealth, and who make the laws of the land. The masses answer to and prop up the elites, and the system stays balanced.

And don't say "oh, the elites are gonna redistribute the wealth equally because yay revolution." You and I both know that equal redistribution would fall apart in an instant. It's happened in the past, and it'll happen again. And what's left of your revolution is the same order you want to destroy. Wealthy rulers controlling the masses.

Human nature is difficult to overcome. You can't just force celibacy on everyone, take all their wealth at gunpoint, force them to work for other people without rewarding them, and expect them to magically want to contribute to the system.

[Cedoria]

It's not new, it's literally Fascism with a red face. That's been done plenty of times before.

I suspect you are aware enough to know this and are using it mainly as a soapbox, but never mind.

And Baathism? Urgh, just, urgh.

People called nearly all types of state socialist "Red fascism".Economically, I have a completely different view from them. Socially, their are lot's of fundamental differences. I am a egalitarian in economic and social terms. All people are to supposed to be equal. To reach this, destroying the old order is a requirement. Fascism reimagines the old, but I seek obliteration of the old society. What kind of fascist believes in the destruction of gender roles, and seeks to form policies for the population as a whole.

Frankly, the way you've been talking in this thread, I wouldn't call you a social egalitarian.

[Communal concils]

People called nearly all types of state socialist "Red fascism".Economically, I have a completely different view from them. Socially, their are lot's of fundamental differences. I am a egalitarian in economic and social terms. All people are to supposed to be equal. To reach this, destroying the old order is a requirement. Fascism reimagines the old, but I seek obliteration of the old society. What kind of fascist believes in the destruction of gender roles, and seeks to form policies for the population as a whole.

Frankly, the way you've been talking in this thread, I wouldn't call you a social egalitarian.

I believe in religious freedom, I'm against racism, I think that their should be a medical policy to cure the disabled, I seek to destroy old social values, and I value gender equality.