Ideal for a New Leftist Movement

[Cedoria]

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.

I love how you ignored the earlier things you talked about in this thread that could be used to suggest otherwise, which would be slightly more forgivable if you didn't know exactly what they are and what I was referring to.


Nice try.

[Herador]

The Fall of the Soviet Union was the beginning of both practical and ideological degeneracy of the movement.

Oh boy, a tanky.

In my opinion it has allowed the right wingers to form unchallenged groups(Alt-Right is a example).

Really? Cause it seems like the right was pretty active the world over before and during the lifespan of the USSR. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that some of the worst things that conservative ideology/capitalism has done was during the Cold War and as a direct response to Communist Russia.

The Democratic socialist policies aren't long lasting,

You gonna explain this more or just leave that hanging? Cause so far what you've said basically means nothing.

the Marxist-Leninist have fantasies of a revolution that will never happen,

...didn't they though? I mean, basically none survived and I'd go so far as to say they stood on shaky ideological ground to begin with, but there have been revolutions that succeeded. It really seems like you're approaching this whole topic from an incredibly western-oriented direction. How very bourgeoisie of you.

the other Communist are too Liberal, and Anarchist believe in a pseudo-egalitarian utopia.

... beg pardon? I mean, you're a tanky so I guess I'm not surprised, it's just that they usually try to hide the fact that they're fundamentally facists.

In my opinion, their needs to be a new ideology. Here are the ideals I propose for the movement(if it was created).

Please god, no.

1.The Socialist State is the only stage of Socialism required. There will be no transition to communism, and their will be no anarchist "society". Enemies would be every were, both foreign and domestic. Order and Stability is what all Socialist should be.

Ok, kinda worrying wording, but if you had just led with this I can see myself at least getting where you're coming from. Not too bad, I genuinely hope this is just a case of bad first impressions.

2.To defeat Capitalism and counter-Revolutionaries ,one must be populist. The Working class aren't educated enough to control the state. There needs to be a responsible Oligarchy.

Come the fuck on. You got literally one point before tipping your hat on this one.

One that challenges it's opposition, but also cleans it's self.

And you were throwing shade at anarchists for having unrealistic beliefs.

This Oligarchy must be lead by a single party, and this party must lead a republic of self restriction .It should also consolidate power.

You want to fucking chill out Adolf?

3.Means justify the ends.

Are you just LARPing a dictator now?

It doesn't not matter how the party gains power, it must find a way of taking control. Elections, Military coup, and popular revolutions; these are only a few methods of gaining power.

Gee, wonder where I've heard rhetoric like this before.

4.Sectarianism is good,there is no "Left Unity".The Spanish civil war shows what Left unity is.

So we just going to ignore every other success and failure of leftism and just focus in on one example? I don't know if you were aiming for brevity, but I would have expanded on this more. I would have expanded on all of this more.

5.State control over the economy is a desire. welfare, Mass production, Protectionism, subsides and public services are good policies.

This isn't... too insane. These are pretty mainstream socialist beliefs. It only took you to point 5 to not sound like a Pinochet cosplayer.

6.Complete rejection of consumerism and capitalist culture is important. Drugs,prositution and other hedonist desires should be banned.

So anarchists striving for a egalitarian utopia is ridiculous, but the complete upending of a major social paradigm that almost the entire world subscribes to and a mass prohibition is somehow reasonable to you? Really? Reaaaaaaaally?

7.People must be unified. Secularism and Nationalism can be used to unite the people. World revolution is a utopia, and focusing on your nation is truly progressive.

This all means fucking nothing.

0/10, write it again and try harder next time.

[Communal concils]

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.

I love how you ignored the earlier things you talked about in this thread that could be used to suggest otherwise, which would be slightly more forgivable if you didn't know exactly what they are and what I was referring to.


Nice try.

I still don't really think it's a enough to call me a fascist. I'm more progressive then they would ever be. Maybe if you ask more about my beliefs, then things would be more faire

[Herador]

I love how you ignored the earlier things you talked about in this thread that could be used to suggest otherwise, which would be slightly more forgivable if you didn't know exactly what they are and what I was referring to.


Nice try.

I still don't really think it's a enough to call me a fascist. I'm more progressive then they would ever be. Maybe if you ask more about my beliefs, then things would be more faire

Maybe you should do a better job of making your belief's clear. You can't just trot out a freshmen book report length (330 words) manifesto and then get uppity when people base their opinions of that screed off of exactly what you wrote.

It kind of seems like you just wrote a bunch of nonsense and then just proceeded to be vague and dodgy on purpose. hmmmmm

[Makersaulache]

It's all been done before bud no use trying now. If you do figure something new out call me.

[Communal concils]

I still don't really think it's a enough to call me a fascist. I'm more progressive then they would ever be. Maybe if you ask more about my beliefs, then things would be more faire

Maybe you should do a better job of making your belief's clear. You can't just trot out a freshmen book report length (330 words) manifesto and then get uppity when people base their opinions of that screed off of exactly what you wrote.

It kind of seems like you just wrote a bunch of nonsense and then just proceeded to be vague and dodgy on purpose. hmmmmm

1.I tried to make a summary of my beliefs. Calling your opposition "fascist" without proof is a lazy thing to do. Not matter what I say, I would still be called that. I can't really put all my beliefs in just the first post alone, I had other things to do. I wasn't vague, I tried to go into detail as much as possible.

[Ardoki]

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.

There is a difference.

An ideal could be a desire for equality, to use an example. I'm a social democrat, I do hold equality up as an important ideal.

Socialists, anarchists, communists, and I'm sure many other ideologies also have a similar view of of striving for equality. But apart from this ideal, our goals and methods can differ widely.

[Communal concils]

The Fall of the Soviet Union was the beginning of both practical and ideological degeneracy of the movement.

Oh boy, a tanky.

In my opinion it has allowed the right wingers to form unchallenged groups(Alt-Right is a example).

Really? Cause it seems like the right was pretty active the world over before and during the lifespan of the USSR. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that some of the worst things that conservative ideology/capitalism has done was during the Cold War and as a direct response to Communist Russia.

The Democratic socialist policies aren't long lasting,

You gonna explain this more or just leave that hanging? Cause so far what you've said basically means nothing.

the Marxist-Leninist have fantasies of a revolution that will never happen,

...didn't they though? I mean, basically none survived and I'd go so far as to say they stood on shaky ideological ground to begin with, but there have been revolutions that succeeded. It really seems like you're approaching this whole topic from an incredibly western-oriented direction. How very bourgeoisie of you.

the other Communist are too Liberal, and Anarchist believe in a pseudo-egalitarian utopia.

... beg pardon? I mean, you're a tanky so I guess I'm not surprised, it's just that they usually try to hide the fact that they're fundamentally facists.

In my opinion, their needs to be a new ideology. Here are the ideals I propose for the movement(if it was created).

Please god, no.

1.The Socialist State is the only stage of Socialism required. There will be no transition to communism, and their will be no anarchist "society". Enemies would be every were, both foreign and domestic. Order and Stability is what all Socialist should be.

Ok, kinda worrying wording, but if you had just led with this I can see myself at least getting where you're coming from. Not too bad, I genuinely hope this is just a case of bad first impressions.

2.To defeat Capitalism and counter-Revolutionaries ,one must be populist. The Working class aren't educated enough to control the state. There needs to be a responsible Oligarchy.

Come the fuck on. You got literally one point before tipping your hat on this one.

One that challenges it's opposition, but also cleans it's self.

And you were throwing shade at anarchists for having unrealistic beliefs.

This Oligarchy must be lead by a single party, and this party must lead a republic of self restriction .It should also consolidate power.

You want to fucking chill out Adolf?

3.Means justify the ends.

Are you just LARPing a dictator now?

It doesn't not matter how the party gains power, it must find a way of taking control. Elections, Military coup, and popular revolutions; these are only a few methods of gaining power.

Gee, wonder where I've heard rhetoric like this before.

4.Sectarianism is good,there is no "Left Unity".The Spanish civil war shows what Left unity is.

So we just going to ignore every other success and failure of leftism and just focus in on one example? I don't know if you were aiming for brevity, but I would have expanded on this more. I would have expanded on all of this more.

5.State control over the economy is a desire. welfare, Mass production, Protectionism, subsides and public services are good policies.

This isn't... too insane. These are pretty mainstream socialist beliefs. It only took you to point 5 to not sound like a Pinochet cosplayer.

6.Complete rejection of consumerism and capitalist culture is important. Drugs,prositution and other hedonist desires should be banned.

So anarchists striving for a egalitarian utopia is ridiculous, but the complete upending of a major social paradigm that almost the entire world subscribes to and a mass prohibition is somehow reasonable to you? Really? Reaaaaaaaally?

7.People must be unified. Secularism and Nationalism can be used to unite the people. World revolution is a utopia, and focusing on your nation is truly progressive.

This all means fucking nothing.

0/10, write it again and try harder next time.

I kinda expect to magically be compared to the failed German Painter, but I neve though I would have been compared to Pinochet. I simply propose the ideal. People are just call me to ideals that don't all have what I really seek. I was at least hoping for more fundamental questions. I honestly would not actually place myself as anything close to what most people describe me as.I can agree with the Marxist-Leninist on many things, but I don't even rely on Marxist theories in the slightest. I believe in a republic of strict values, one in which resources were spent changing the frameworks of mankind. The oligarchy is simply the vanguard with a different title the more honest title.Populism can become part of the left, even nationalism. Those things were their since the French Revolution, and I see my ideal as new, but resurrection of the old socialist groups

[Kubra]

>drugs and hedonist desires banned
If I can't dance it's not my revolution

[Kowani]

>drugs and hedonist desires banned
If I can't dance it's not my revolution

Calvin waves at you.

[Kubra]

>drugs and hedonist desires banned
If I can't dance it's not my revolution

Calvin waves at you.

sry too busy enjoying some refreshing communion wine

[Woodfiredpizzas]

Authoritarian, inneffective and corrupt.

How is this any different than every other leftist movement?

[Kubra]

Authoritarian, inneffective and corrupt.

How is this any different than every other leftist movement?

We don't know if it's ineffective or corrupt. That's a judgement of actually-existing polities, bro. This is a guy on forum putting out his grand proposal.

[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.

OP, you "forgot" to respond to this. I'd like an answer, especially to the latter.

[Herador]

1.I tried to make a summary of my beliefs. Calling your opposition "fascist" without proof is a lazy thing to do. Not matter what I say, I would still be called that. I can't really put all my beliefs in just the first post alone, I had other things to do. I wasn't vague, I tried to go into detail as much as possible.

No one has any proof one way or another, you're OP was so scant on information that it might as well have just said nothing at all. The core of what you described is basically "I want to force people to do what I want" and that's... it, really. You just used (slightly) more words.

In fact, the underlined bit kills me. You have this "brand new" (I don't have enough quotes to put around these two words so I won't try) ideology and your go to excuse for why someone thinks it's a book report written by an edgy freshmen is that you just didn't have enough time? Really? This is your idea for a new political direction to take the left in and you just decided to use 300-some-odd words and just call it a day? The fact that you had the fucking gall to call what I wrote lazy tells me all I need to know about you.

I kinda expect to magically be compared to the failed German Painter, but I neve though I would have been compared to Pinochet. I simply propose the ideal. People are just call me to ideals that don't all have what I really seek. I was at least hoping for more fundamental questions. I honestly would not actually place myself as anything close to what most people describe me as.I can agree with the Marxist-Leninist on many things, but I don't even rely on Marxist theories in the slightest. I believe in a republic of strict values, one in which resources were spent changing the frameworks of mankind. The oligarchy is simply the vanguard with a different title the more honest title.Populism can become part of the left, even nationalism. Those things were their since the French Revolution, and I see my ideal as new, but resurrection of the old socialist groups

You keep having a fit whenever someone tries to place you on a spectrum but refuse to actually expand on what you believe other than placing yourself vaguely alongside other (better) ideologues.

Almost like you are being vague and dodgy on purpose.

OP, you "forgot" to respond to this. I'd like an answer, especially to the latter.

Does any of this actually seem well thought out? I'm not convinced this wasn't written while high/drunk/some combination of the two and now OP is just defending their ramblings on principle

[The New California Republic]

OP, you "forgot" to respond to this. I'd like an answer, especially to the latter.

Does any of this actually seem well thought out? I'm not convinced this wasn't written while high/drunk/some combination of the two and now OP is just defending their ramblings on principle

Even if my questions just nudge the OP into reconsidering the feasibility of their plans then I will have succeeded.

[Communal concils]

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


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.

OP, you "forgot" to respond to this. I'd like an answer, especially to the latter.

1.Ofcourse they can participate in reproductive sex.Though,I don't expect most to really seek that.


2.A secret Police would be to typical.The best thing is for the citizens themselves to report any behavior descourage by the new society.Children,spouse, your neighbor will all be involve in trying to scout any activities(including illegal sexual activities).Prositution groups would just be shut down by regular law enforcement.Even the partners themselves could expose the behaviors of their mates.

[Communal concils]

1.I tried to make a summary of my beliefs. Calling your opposition "fascist" without proof is a lazy thing to do. Not matter what I say, I would still be called that. I can't really put all my beliefs in just the first post alone, I had other things to do. I wasn't vague, I tried to go into detail as much as possible.

No one has any proof one way or another, you're OP was so scant on information that it might as well have just said nothing at all. The core of what you described is basically "I want to force people to do what I want" and that's... it, really. You just used (slightly) more words.

In fact, the underlined bit kills me. You have this "brand new" (I don't have enough quotes to put around these two words so I won't try) ideology and your go to excuse for why someone thinks it's a book report written by an edgy freshmen is that you just didn't have enough time? Really? This is your idea for a new political direction to take the left in and you just decided to use 300-some-odd words and just call it a day? The fact that you had the fucking gall to call what I wrote lazy tells me all I need to know about you.

I kinda expect to magically be compared to the failed German Painter, but I neve though I would have been compared to Pinochet. I simply propose the ideal. People are just call me to ideals that don't all have what I really seek. I was at least hoping for more fundamental questions. I honestly would not actually place myself as anything close to what most people describe me as.I can agree with the Marxist-Leninist on many things, but I don't even rely on Marxist theories in the slightest. I believe in a republic of strict values, one in which resources were spent changing the frameworks of mankind. The oligarchy is simply the vanguard with a different title the more honest title.Populism can become part of the left, even nationalism. Those things were their since the French Revolution, and I see my ideal as new, but resurrection of the old socialist groups

You keep having a fit whenever someone tries to place you on a spectrum but refuse to actually expand on what you believe other than placing yourself vaguely alongside other (better) ideologues.

Almost like you are being vague and dodgy on purpose.

OP, you "forgot" to respond to this. I'd like an answer, especially to the latter.

Does any of this actually seem well thought out? I'm not convinced this wasn't written while high/drunk/some combination of the two and now OP is just defending their ramblings on principle

I actually don't have the time to respond to these immediately, But I try when I'm able to. I respond to other several times about ideological classification , economic and social views of fundamental importance.I would rather support civic Nationalism over think Nationalism, and I think there is barely any difference in the ability of all humans across the world. Gender roles of Men and Women are more similar to the eastern Bloc than any fascist, and I seek the total solidarity of people across racial and geographical backgrounds. I simply suppose the ideal, that is all. I also expand on my views, and that is only if they ask questions about that certain issue. I only called some reactions lazy because they were more focus on insulting, I try to be more serious on the topics.

[The New California Republic]

1.Ofcourse they can participate in reproductive sex.Though,I don't expect most to really seek that.

You admit that banning non-procreative sex would be a de facto ban on homosexuals having sex?

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.

2.A secret Police would be to typical.The best thing is for the citizens themselves to report any behavior descourage by the new society.Children,spouse, your neighbor will all be involve in trying to scout any activities(including illegal sexual activities).Prositution groups would just be shut down by regular law enforcement.Even the partners themselves could expose the behaviors of their mates.

So you want to create a mutual atmosphere of suspicion whereby people report their friends and even family members for engaging in non-procreative sex? So the sex Stasi basically?


It'd be totally ineffective, you will never get people to agree to that. People would literally flee the country, and there would be a thriving domestic black market in non-procreative sex. The reasons that you have thus far given for banning non-procreative sex are quite frankly abysmal, and the enforcement methods laughable. Seriously man, don't be as prudish when it comes to sex.

[Herador]

I actually don't have the time to respond to these immediately, But I try when I'm able to. I respond to other several times about ideological classification , economic and social views of fundamental importance.I would rather support civic Nationalism over think Nationalism, and I think there is barely any difference in the ability of all humans across the world. Gender roles of Men and Women are more similar to the eastern Bloc than any fascist, and I seek the total solidarity of people across racial and geographical backgrounds. I simply suppose the ideal, that is all. I also expand on my views, and that is only if they ask questions about that certain issue. I only called some reactions lazy because they were more focus on insulting, I try to be more serious on the topics.

My entire focus was on ridicule, so I guess you managed to be right finally. your ideas are, horribly ineffective for reasons that have been made obvious time and again in this thread and in the most recent post by NCR. The fact of it is that you haven't tried anything new here, either ideologically or even just on this forum. NSG has seen what I assume at this point to be hundreds of high schoolers with crackpot ideas that think they have the answer and, just like with your peers, that answer was at best poorly thought out and at it's worst a self-insert fanfiction where you have all the power and force those who don't agree to follow you.

So yeah, I meant to be insulting, because your ideas aren't even worth taking seriously.

[The New Teutonic Order]

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.

If we're bringing back old arguments for the OP to respond to, then I guess I better do it with mine.

[Communal concils]

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.

If we're bringing back old arguments for the OP to respond to, then I guess I better do it with mine.

1.Isn't all society governed by thought crime, it's called morality. If you think in a certain way, then people will think of it as a ethical crime. America has been a nation of contradictions for so long.The founding fathers said that "all Men are created equal". However, slavery was still legal(until 1865).The civil Rights Movement didn't destroyed institutionalize racism until 1969.Though out the cold war, there was the Red Scare. Red squads attacked trade unions. The Vietnam war also showed how "freedom is to the government "Men were drafted and sent to a foreign land that they didn't understand. Even worse, the South Vietnamese Government was a Presidential Dictatorship. So no one was getting the "freedom of the west" in that place.

2.Sweden is not the most "Leftist" nation in the world. That title belongs to Cuba. Unlike Sweden, that country changed the old order and replaced It with a New one. Racism is a complex thing, it will not magically fade away. The Immigration issue has increased Xenophobia and Racism universally across all Industrialize and develop nations.

3.The world has a growing hatred for the united states, the republic is in debt, and it is suffering from a Job shortage. The demands for unlimited immigration from the libertarians and liberals of all forms may seem benevolent, but in reality it is bring the poor in a trap of debt and rent. Military intervention across the world affect the country, The military budget could be used to solve all of these domestic issues. Also China does not care for any ideological ideals, it only cares about power. This Chinese capitalism is full of "Chinese characteristics".Indian Government is still corrupt regardless of the systems it's compared to. It's Government is bad at enforcing policies.

4.My propose that my ideology allows for gaining power in many ways. Reform and Revolution are not always desirable, because their can be other ways. Sometimes, these are the best.


5.Regradless if people think that the flat Earth theories are true, then this would allow for people to embrace even more foolish conspiracy theories.


6.Have you ever thought of the Weimar Republic, or the resent boom in similar movements in Europe. What about Euromaidan, Neo-Nazism is flourishing in Western Ukraine. If democracy is Good, then it will only be good when people are restricted of bad concepts. Singapore is an example of this. There will be many people that agree with you, but there will be many that support what I have stated as my thoughts. Their are many political parties with beliefs similar to mine.

[Communal concils]

I actually don't have the time to respond to these immediately, But I try when I'm able to. I respond to other several times about ideological classification , economic and social views of fundamental importance.I would rather support civic Nationalism over think Nationalism, and I think there is barely any difference in the ability of all humans across the world. Gender roles of Men and Women are more similar to the eastern Bloc than any fascist, and I seek the total solidarity of people across racial and geographical backgrounds. I simply suppose the ideal, that is all. I also expand on my views, and that is only if they ask questions about that certain issue. I only called some reactions lazy because they were more focus on insulting, I try to be more serious on the topics.

My entire focus was on ridicule, so I guess you managed to be right finally. your ideas are, horribly ineffective for reasons that have been made obvious time and again in this thread and in the most recent post by NCR. The fact of it is that you haven't tried anything new here, either ideologically or even just on this forum. NSG has seen what I assume at this point to be hundreds of high schoolers with crackpot ideas that think they have the answer and, just like with your peers, that answer was at best poorly thought out and at it's worst a self-insert fanfiction where you have all the power and force those who don't agree to follow you.

So yeah, I meant to be insulting, because your ideas aren't even worth taking seriously.

My ideals are only horrible to those of a certain political classification,which is obviously most of the critics(including you).It only seems old to those that look at certain concepts ,we could talk about many other differant ideals.The fact that people call my ideals Fascist,Troskyist,Communist ,Maoist,and Third Positionsit and Reactionary shows that my ideal is "New" in some form.To just call me any of this would be
useless, because there is some aspect of my "Theory" that contradicts all these classification. What kind of Trotskyist rejects World revolution, What kind of Communist rejects the "transitional stage", what kind of Reactionary believes in the Destruction of "The Old Order".



I wouldn't call my proposal "fanfiction"(maybe you think it's fanction to Stalin), but I would call a Utopia a Fanfiction.I don't think a "Perfect" world is possible.I don't see my ideals as perfect.

[Herador]

My entire focus was on ridicule, so I guess you managed to be right finally. your ideas are, horribly ineffective for reasons that have been made obvious time and again in this thread and in the most recent post by NCR. The fact of it is that you haven't tried anything new here, either ideologically or even just on this forum. NSG has seen what I assume at this point to be hundreds of high schoolers with crackpot ideas that think they have the answer and, just like with your peers, that answer was at best poorly thought out and at it's worst a self-insert fanfiction where you have all the power and force those who don't agree to follow you.

So yeah, I meant to be insulting, because your ideas aren't even worth taking seriously.

My ideals are only horrible to those of a certain political classification,which is obviously most of the critics(including you).It only seems old to those that look at certain concepts ,we could talk about many other differant ideals.The fact that people call my ideals Fascist,Troskyist,Communist ,Maoist,and Third Positionsit and Reactionary shows that my ideal is "New" in some form.To just call me any of this would be
useless, because there is some aspect of my "Theory" that contradicts all these classification. What kind of Trotskyist rejects World revolution, What kind of Communist rejects the "transitional stage", what kind of Reactionary believes in the Destruction of "The Old Order".



I wouldn't call my proposal "fanfiction"(maybe you think it's fanction to Stalin), but I would call a Utopia a Fanfiction.I don't think a "Perfect" world is possible.I don't see my ideals as perfect.

Or people labelling it as something is the result of it being poorly explained. More over, your attempts to dodge critisim by claiming that people just don't get it because they're dependent on old ways of thinking just screams "edgy memes for political teens".

[Communal concils]

My ideals are only horrible to those of a certain political classification,which is obviously most of the critics(including you).It only seems old to those that look at certain concepts ,we could talk about many other differant ideals.The fact that people call my ideals Fascist,Troskyist,Communist ,Maoist,and Third Positionsit and Reactionary shows that my ideal is "New" in some form.To just call me any of this would be
useless, because there is some aspect of my "Theory" that contradicts all these classification. What kind of Trotskyist rejects World revolution, What kind of Communist rejects the "transitional stage", what kind of Reactionary believes in the Destruction of "The Old Order".



I wouldn't call my proposal "fanfiction"(maybe you think it's fanction to Stalin), but I would call a Utopia a Fanfiction.I don't think a "Perfect" world is possible.I don't see my ideals as perfect.

Or people labelling it as something is the result of it being poorly explained. More over, your attempts to dodge critisim by claiming that people just don't get it because they're dependent on old ways of thinking just screams "edgy memes for political teens".

It's not really poorly explained, I wouldn't think it's a good Ideal to turn the entire first Page into a E-book. I was hopping to explain more through the Debate(which is what I'm trying to do).I don't try to dodge criticism. In a way, the internet allows for all Political Ideologies to have "Edgy Memes for Political Teens"("Anti-Sjw Movement is an example. I would consider myself Anit-Anti Sjw for the very reason that it deserves that title).