Ideal for a New Leftist Movement

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

1. I thought that was the whole point of Communism.

2. Wait, so do you wanna be populist or do you wanna be elitist? Not to mention that what you're suggesting sounds completely undemocratic and dictatorial.

3. No, you're thinking of ends justify the means, and demonstrating why it's such an awful philosophy. If the party gained power over the graves of nearly everyone in the nation, it would not be worth it to any sane person, no matter how dedicated to "the party" they were.

4. Hey, if sectarianism separates better Socialists from you, I'm all for it.

5. I thought worker control over the economy was the desire of Socialism. At any rate, completely disagree.

6. What do drugs and prostitution have to do with consumer culture? Capitalism didn't invent vices, and vices shouldn't be banned.

7. What kind of secularism?

All in all, you don't sound much like an average Socialist, you sound like a right-wing libertarian's boogeyman of a Socialist, that is, just plain authoritarian.

1.I didn't claim to be a Communist. I agree with some variants on the way socialism should be created, but I reject the concept of "Dialectical Materialism".


2.A Group is only elitist if it thinks that it's superior to the rest of the population. I however propose that the Party wouldn't see it's self as superior, but rather guides it's people. I don't see Democracy as a good system. It limits law making it petty infighting, and it makes reform harder.

3.It can never gain the power without people. You assume the "sanity" people. Humanity is a social species, and the majority of people go for the popular or most major views. Democracy is only "popular" when it's thrown into the minds of citizens, this is the chase for all beliefs. This is why Christianity has 2 Billion followers, and why many popular revolutions spawn many more.


4.Most of the socialist you think of can't even appeal to the majority of a nation. Sectarianism is necessary to prevent minor concepts from hindering policies.

5.I do support Worker Control. Cooperatives are fine with me. However, state control is suppose to be for mass production, Employment and Industrialization. I think workers should have rights and a good amount of pay.


6.These things do have a lot to do with consumer culture. People consume and buy without thinking of the consequences. Society urges citizens to harm their own health.


7.I believe that people should practice their religion. Rituals and ceremonies won't be discourage. It's Freedom of Religion that I support.

1. Fair enough.

2. If the executive branch does not allow the public any representation, the executive branch believes itself to be superior. It's democracy or elitism, you can have both, but you can't have neither.

3. From your "ends justify the means" speech, it sounds like, if you needed to kill a whole lot of people to get your party into power, you'd do it.

4. I don't understand. What do you mean by "minor concepts hindering policy." Tell you what though, you'd be way worse at appealing to the majority of a nation than most Socialists.

5. I think mass production and industry is far more efficient and free when it's run by non-state entities.

6. You're not gonna end impulsive and recklessness by ending capitalism. If someone grew and then S L O N K E D a little bit of gang weed, or if someone offered to have sex with another person for money, it's not your place to barge in and stop them.

7. Fair enough.

[Communal concils]

1.I didn't claim to be a Communist. I agree with some variants on the way socialism should be created, but I reject the concept of "Dialectical Materialism".


2.A Group is only elitist if it thinks that it's superior to the rest of the population. I however propose that the Party wouldn't see it's self as superior, but rather guides it's people. I don't see Democracy as a good system. It limits law making it petty infighting, and it makes reform harder.

3.It can never gain the power without people. You assume the "sanity" people. Humanity is a social species, and the majority of people go for the popular or most major views. Democracy is only "popular" when it's thrown into the minds of citizens, this is the chase for all beliefs. This is why Christianity has 2 Billion followers, and why many popular revolutions spawn many more.


4.Most of the socialist you think of can't even appeal to the majority of a nation. Sectarianism is necessary to prevent minor concepts from hindering policies.

5.I do support Worker Control. Cooperatives are fine with me. However, state control is suppose to be for mass production, Employment and Industrialization. I think workers should have rights and a good amount of pay.


6.These things do have a lot to do with consumer culture. People consume and buy without thinking of the consequences. Society urges citizens to harm their own health.


7.I believe that people should practice their religion. Rituals and ceremonies won't be discourage. It's Freedom of Religion that I support.

1. Fair enough.

2. If the executive branch does not allow the public any representation, the executive branch believes itself to be superior. It's democracy or elitism, you can have both, but you can't have neither.

3. From your "ends justify the means" speech, it sounds like, if you needed to kill a whole lot of people to get your party into power, you'd do it.

4. I don't understand. What do you mean by "minor concepts hindering policy." Tell you what though, you'd be way worse at appealing to the majority of a nation than most Socialists.

5. I think mass production and industry is far more efficient and free when it's run by non-state entities.

6. You're not gonna end impulsive and recklessness by ending capitalism. If someone grew and then S L O N K E D a little bit of gang weed, or if someone offered to have sex with another person for money, it's not your place to barge in and stop them.

7. Fair enough.

2.The Citizens can be representived.They simpily have to prove themselves in work, education and goals.


3.Most cases, that is not needed.I only see such a thing happening in a civil war.



4.Appealing to them is a way of making a social contract.The state becomes the tool to enact policies infavor of the people's desires, but they give up somethings for the protection ,as well as gaining more important rights ( Mostly Economic).Many Socialist in western countries have alienated themselves from the working class.Living a bourgeoise Life.Anarchist seek the individual to have freedom without boundaries(which is noble thing,until the someone fills the stateless void).I would also be crtitical of forms of Marxism that beleive in a state that supports extreme economic outcome with out mass production.


5.I wouldn't ban Non-state enities for doing economic the samething.I would only allow non-capitalist forms of it. Cooperatives (in which employees are also managers) and small buisness with self-employement wouldn't be limited.The planned economy is designed for the focus of the economy on various needs.Like Ordering the creation of factories.


6.Those things are not cause by Capitalism, but the practiced(not theorectical) forms of capitalism encourage it.To help the lower classes reach a better standarded of living, their would need to be the reshaping of social values.

[Communal concils]

However the process of the law would try to gather as much evidence for or against the accused. The exact form of punishment depends on the sexual behavior.

Stop trying to cover it up. Clarify what sexual behaviours that you'd consider to be punishable by the death penalty in your system.

---

Wouldn't the attempted killing of authorities create a public opinion against Homosexuality in general.

Your system wants to arrest them and kill them for having sex. Gay people would be entirely justified in defending themselves from the fucking wankers that were coming to arrest them for a death sentence for engaging in a behaviour that isn't harming anyone else. And "attempted killing of authorities"? Oh no no no, you grossly misunderstand: there would be no mere attempt, they'd quite clearly die.

---

Though people of all sexualities would be treated equal under the law.

Stop talking nonsense. A ban on non-reproductive sex would affect gay people differently to straight people because it would be a de facto ban on all sex for them.

---

Also how "safe" are these safe spaces.

It'd be safer than being out in public in a regime that wants to arrest them and kill them.

---

Wouldn't the individuals in this "secret" Society have different desires.

The fuck are you talking about? Safe space =/= secret society. And "different desires"? What?

---

Also wouldn't there be more than one group of authorities to come.

So? It'd just mean that more bribes would need to be paid, or more bodies of dead government goons would need disposing of.

1.Rape, bestiliality,Pedophilla, Fetishes and Necrophilia will be punished with death.Those with "normal" sexual actractions will be punished if they did certain methods of sex.

2.You assume that all the "safe" spaces will follow the same rules.

3.I think that should be honesty about their sexuality.It wouldn't be my desire to force anything into closets.A secret collection of people base only on sexual desires deserves to be investigated.If no one investigates,thentheir would be deviants with in the secret socity that would infiltrate your "Safe space".Also if the officals end up dead, then it would give the justification to remove such groups.

[Communal concils]

Sounds pretty dumb and ignorant. The working-class are too stupid to rule? Someone literally hasn't heard about the education policies of literally any socialist nation, or their hiring practices for government positions. Prostitution must be rejected? How? By calling them sluts and putting them in jail or something? Also dumb. It's literally the world's oldest profession. I'm anti-sex work but even I know that making it illegal just makes it worse for the women who have to live outside the law to make an income, and the fact that stigmatizing it actually just makes them less powerful as working people to organize effectively. Insert more stuff here about "our (sic) nation"

If you unironically think you'll undercut fascism or even win the support of fascists by being more like them, not to mention using 1920's fascist platitudes that have almost no bearing on modern fascist movements, you should be laughed at. It's the definition of opportunism and you'll just sound silly. Instead, I think people should highlight how many of our societies have become genuinely parasitic, living off the back of developing nations and their labor. The first-world worker is in a crisis of moral and social ostracization, perhaps influenced by the emptiness and vapidity of life in a nation which takes up the role of the oppressor. The end goal of reformist social-democratic parties have been unveiled as temporary measures. If Lenin tells us that only the productive may have a true proletarian consciousness, then what is the consciousness of the ostracized (in imperial nations) that desperately want something else? I say if Marx's conceptions of a socially-minded, cooperative, revolutionary and truly progressive working-class is a construction (and it's still very true in many countries where parasitism doesn't reign) then there's only one option left for socialist revolutionaries in the first world: come up with another by way of investigation. There is not a true proletariat in the majority in first world populations.

1.Most places had a uneducated Proletariat. This was true for the Soviet Union. There had to be programs to teach adults to read and write, and the system I propose has a vanguard, which is what most socialist nations had. Prostitutes will be prevented form their jobs, but a program for new jobs will help them sustain their life needs.


2.I don't seek to gain the support of fascist, but rather seek the support of the majority of a nation.


3.I recognize the inequality of poor nation against the richer one's. The working class of the poor nation is different from the working class of the first world. There are many situations that each nation suffers from, and it's important to make theories of social conditions "Flexible". I Would advocate for the independence of the first world from the third world, and third world should be independent of the First world. I would support Revolution in the Third world.

4.I do think that social democrats have not made effective reforms, I would support revolution(only in the right conditions).Maybe their isn't a proliteriat in the "traditional" terms of the First world,Perhaps that role fits the third world more. You are right that Leftist needs to evolve new solutions for the first world.


I think your crticism is justified,and I find your arguements interesting.Infact, I would consider it the best criticism.

[Korouse]

Good. My argument is firm anti-nationalism. I hate America and all its built on. It is a completely despicable thing that the center-left movement here is screaming more more more in the vein of the New Deal, while AOC votes for NATO funding, because we all know it's going to be another Imperial Redistribution program along civic nationalist lines by way of conquest. That's what WW2 was about for FDR behind all the "fighting for democracy" stuff.

[Puldania]

The arguments being made by the OP are borderline incoherent. I don't know why this thread is still going.

[Korouse]

The arguments being made by the OP are borderline incoherent. I don't know why this thread is still going.

We must continue the Maoist struggle sessions until Communal concils rescinds his vapid social-fascism!

[Free Arabian Nation]

The arguments being made by the OP are borderline incoherent. I don't know why this thread is still going.

Someone else being wrong unites people.

[Puldania]

The arguments being made by the OP are borderline incoherent. I don't know why this thread is still going.

We must continue the Maoist struggle sessions until Communal concils rescinds his vapid social-fascism!

Fighting fire with fire

[Korouse]

We must continue the Maoist struggle sessions until Communal concils rescinds his vapid social-fascism!

Fighting fire with fire

Wrong. The spirit of struggle sessions are not mere shitposting, but the principled critique of the subject publicly. We believe this is important in the struggle over our ideological line and our protracted people's war in general. Glory to Chairman Gonzalo! Long Live the Shining Path.

[The New California Republic]

Clarify what sexual behaviours that you'd consider to be punishable by the death penalty in your system.

Rape, bestiliality,Pedophilla, Fetishes and Necrophilia will be punished with death.

Fetishes? So someone who likes feet will be given the death penalty? Or someone who likes leather, or denim, or...

---

Those with "normal" sexual actractions will be punished if they did certain methods of sex.

What would you class as "normal"? What would the punishment be? And "certain methods of sex"? Please explain.

---

Your system wants to arrest them and kill them for having sex. Gay people would be entirely justified in defending themselves from the fucking wankers that were coming to arrest them for a death sentence for engaging in a behaviour that isn't harming anyone else. And "attempted killing of authorities"? Oh no no no, you grossly misunderstand: there would be no mere attempt, they'd quite clearly die.

if the officals end up dead, then it would give the justification to remove such groups.

The government officials are coming to round up and imprison/kill gay people. They fired the first shot, not the gay people.

---

You assume that all the "safe" spaces will follow the same rules.

The fuck is that supposed to mean?

---

I think that should be honesty about their sexuality.It wouldn't be my desire to force anything into closets.

How the fuck can they be honest about their sexuality when your system would imprison and/or execute them?

---

A secret collection of people base only on sexual desires deserves to be investigated

You have that completely backwards. Your system forced them to hide because it is persecuting them.

---

If no one investigates,thentheir would be deviants with in the secret socity that would infiltrate your "Safe space".

It isn't a secret society for fuck's sake. And your system classes all non-reproductive sex as "deviant", so that really isn't a difficult thing to be.

[Free Arabian Nation]

Rape, bestiliality,Pedophilla, Fetishes and Necrophilia will be punished with death.

Fetishes? So someone who likes feet will be given the death penalty? Or someone who likes leather, or denim, or...

And what if my fetish is being killed?

[The New California Republic]

Fetishes? So someone who likes feet will be given the death penalty? Or someone who likes leather, or denim, or...

And what if my fetish is being killed?

Well then, you are in for a good day...

[Sicaris]

Good. My argument is firm anti-nationalism. I hate America and all its built on. It is a completely despicable thing that the center-left movement here is screaming more more more in the vein of the New Deal, while AOC votes for NATO funding, because we all know it's going to be another Imperial Redistribution program along civic nationalist lines by way of conquest. That's what WW2 was about for FDR behind all the "fighting for democracy" stuff.

[Sicaris]

Fetishes? So someone who likes feet will be given the death penalty? Or someone who likes leather, or denim, or...

And what if my fetish is being killed?

You got ‘em there.

Maybe like, being provided a loving family and great life or something?

Dunno. Communism doesn’t make sense in general though, so..

[Puldania]

Good. My argument is firm anti-nationalism. I hate America and all its built on. It is a completely despicable thing that the center-left movement here is screaming more more more in the vein of the New Deal, while AOC votes for NATO funding, because we all know it's going to be another Imperial Redistribution program along civic nationalist lines by way of conquest. That's what WW2 was about for FDR behind all the "fighting for democracy" stuff.

It's a bit painful to read. I reckon they just read the manifesto.

[Korouse]

Good. My argument is firm anti-nationalism. I hate America and all its built on. It is a completely despicable thing that the center-left movement here is screaming more more more in the vein of the New Deal, while AOC votes for NATO funding, because we all know it's going to be another Imperial Redistribution program along civic nationalist lines by way of conquest. That's what WW2 was about for FDR behind all the "fighting for democracy" stuff.

Good talk. Shut the fuck up LARPer.

[Communal concils]

The arguments being made by the OP are borderline incoherent. I don't know why this thread is still going.

People are curious, They seek answers and want to debate me. I at least thank them for this.

[Sicaris]

Good talk. Shut the fuck up LARPer.

LARPer? What?

Are you just angry I find this rant about America being a “completely despicable thing” funny?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Good talk. Shut the fuck up LARPer.

LARPer? What?

Are you just angry I find this rant about America being a “completely despicable thing” funny?

It appears he is, because you had the audacity to have a different opinion from his.

[Communal concils]

Good. My argument is firm anti-nationalism. I hate America and all its built on. It is a completely despicable thing that the center-left movement here is screaming more more more in the vein of the New Deal, while AOC votes for NATO funding, because we all know it's going to be another Imperial Redistribution program along civic nationalist lines by way of conquest. That's what WW2 was about for FDR behind all the "fighting for democracy" stuff.

I agree, I never liked Social Democrats in the slightest. It's Neo-liberalism that claims to be socialist, and they have no sustainable economic plan outside capitalism.

[Sicaris]

LARPer? What?

Are you just angry I find this rant about America being a “completely despicable thing” funny?

It appears he is, because you had the audacity to have a different opinion from his.

I guess I just need to be shoved in the free-of-tax community meat grinder, then.

[Korouse]

Good talk. Shut the fuck up LARPer.

LARPer? What?

Are you just angry I find this rant about America being a “completely despicable thing” funny?

I'm angry because I expect good opposition and I get you.

[Communal concils]

Fetishes? So someone who likes feet will be given the death penalty? Or someone who likes leather, or denim, or...

And what if my fetish is being killed?

Then you have Mentally freed yourself.

[Sicaris]

LARPer? What?

Are you just angry I find this rant about America being a “completely despicable thing” funny?

I'm angry because I expect good opposition and I get you.

Ah. So the answer is yes.