Ideal for a New Leftist Movement

[Kowani]

I can’t say no fast enough.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

literally first paragraph of the article: "A few weeks after the death of Stalin, the new Soviet leadership stated a lack of evidence and the case was dropped. Soon after, the case was declared to have been fabricated."

Yes, because Stalin fabricated the case against them.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Doctors-Plot

While it could be argued that the new leadership was better (I would of course argue against that) if you look at the earlier repressive tactics especially, they are in fact very fascistic. Forcing dissidents into labor camps to be worked to death for example, and forced transfer of minorities.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

I'm getting a strong Adolf vibe

Closer to Strasser, actually. Or NazBols.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Yes, because Stalin fabricated the case against them.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Doctors-Plot

While it could be argued that the new leadership was better (I would of course argue against that) if you look at the earlier repressive tactics especially, they are in fact very fascistic. Forcing dissidents into labor camps to be worked to death for example, and forced transfer of minorities.

Fascists didn't do either of those things; you're thinking of Nazis, like everyone else.

[Unithonia]

I'm getting a strong Adolf vibe

Closer to Strasser, actually. Or NazBols.

True
But the mustache on Papa Adolf is the only rival of Daddy Stalin, so I feel obliged to mention him

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I'm getting a strong Adolf vibe

Closer to Strasser, actually. Or NazBols.

Strasser and the NazBols are so misunderstood it's not even funny lol

Everybody forgets that far-left Nazis actually existed.

[Communal concils]

I'm a socialist, and I'm far-left. The historical socialist movements had things I like, as well as things I dislike. However, I agree with many policies of these movements.

The Fall of the Soviet Union was the beginning of both practical and ideological degeneracy of the movement. In my opinion it has allowed the right wingers to form unchallenged groups(Alt-Right is a example).The Democratic socialist policies aren't long lasting, the Marxist-Leninist have fantasies of a revolution that will never happen, the other Communist are too Liberal, and Anarchist believe in a pseudo-egalitarian utopia.In my opinion, their needs to be a new ideology. Here are the ideals I propose for the movement(if it was created).

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.

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. 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.

3.Means justify the ends. 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.

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

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

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

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.

Looks like complete Nazbol to me but with a "new movement" face. Literally identical to Gregor Strasser but without all that Jewhating bullshit. At the very least, this sounds like nothing more than a thinly veiled imitation of Ingsoc and a attempt to impose fascism with a red face. Sorry, not interested.

I'm not a "national" Bolshevik. Honestly, I don't like George Orwell. I read 1984,and his "Dystopia" is pathetic. If anything, His book got the attention of real proles, unaware proletariats. Not only that, he made a list on people he thought were Stalinist(remember, people he "thought" were Stalinist).So how can he be called a anti-authoritarian when he supports the censorship and discrimination of some one's beliefs.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Closer to Strasser, actually. Or NazBols.

True
But the mustache on Papa Adolf is the only rival of Daddy Stalin, so I feel obliged to mention him

Stalin had a pedostache, Adolf had a crime against facial hair.

Closer to Strasser, actually. Or NazBols.

Strasser and the NazBols are so misunderstood it's not even funny lol

Everybody forgets that far-left Nazis actually existed.

According to some Nazis, Nazism is the "true Left" lol

[Karu Nadu]

Closer to Strasser, actually. Or NazBols.

Strasser and the NazBols are so misunderstood it's not even funny lol

Everybody forgets that far-left Nazis actually existed.

Found it surprising that "socialism" was the other half of the formal term for the Nazi party.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

True
But the mustache on Papa Adolf is the only rival of Daddy Stalin, so I feel obliged to mention him

Stalin had a pedostache, Adolf had a crime against facial hair.

Strasser and the NazBols are so misunderstood it's not even funny lol

Everybody forgets that far-left Nazis actually existed.

According to some Nazis, Nazism is the "true Left" lol

The far-right is indeed partially correct when saying that National Socialism had socialist elements...

However, what they get completely wrong is that they think the Hitlerites were the "far-left Nazis" when in reality, it was the Strasserists, who, you guessed it, got purged by the Hitlerites.

[Communal concils]

I enjoy the conservations happening here.The best thing is that I wanted all of these replies. Of course the "Libertarian" Socialist and conservatives criticize me, and I enjoy their response.


I do have to say that I'm not fascist. If anything, you should compare me to the Jacobins of the French revolution, or maybe various pre-Marxist forms of socialism. Historically, many French political theorist believe in the ideals I've shown. I see my ideology as being the revival of Non-Marxist Socialism. Socialism that was rejected by Marx and Engels, socialism and was dwarfed by Marxism.


The "Libertarian" Socialist claim that Marxist-Leninist and other state socialist ruined the word of socialism, but I think it's the other way around. The Anarcho-Communist and Syndicalist praise various revolts and rebellions, but they never reach their goals. Anarchist Catalonia did not abolish capitalism, and it had to remove capitalist by force. To remove them by force is coercive, and the anarchist execute their enemies. Which is coercive. George Orwell worked with the anarchist, and his experience in that land lead the foundations for "1984".Yet this "socialist" supported the Red Scare. Today, these anarchist influenced by him believe that the "Free" revolution is coming, and they point to societies like rojava.A society that will fail to the Turks and will be reconquered by Assad.

[The New Teutonic Order]

I enjoy the conservations happening here.The best thing is that I wanted all of these replies. Of course the "Libertarian" Socialist and conservatives criticize me, and I enjoy their response.


I do have to say that I'm not fascist. If anything, you should compare me to the Jacobins of the French revolution, or maybe various pre-Marxist forms of socialism. Historically, many French political theorist believe in the ideals I've shown. I see my ideology as being the revival of Non-Marxist Socialism. Socialism that was rejected by Marx and Engels, socialism and was dwarfed by Marxism.


The "Libertarian" Socialist claim that Marxist-Leninist and other state socialist ruined the word of socialism, but I think it's the other way around. The Anarcho-Communist and Syndicalist praise various revolts and rebellions, but they never reach their goals. Anarchist Catalonia did not abolish capitalism, and it had to remove capitalist by force. To remove them by force is coercive, and the anarchist execute their enemies. Which is coercive. George Orwell worked with the anarchist, and his experience in that land lead the foundations for "1984".Yet this "socialist" supported the Red Scare. Today, these anarchist influenced by him believe that the "Free" revolution is coming, and they point to societies like rojava.A society that will fail to the Turks and will be reconquered by Assad.

You compare yourself to the Jacobins? The Jacobins as in "the people who literally killed 40,000 people in Paris alone because they didn't agree with them", who were so bad that when they were in charge it was called the Reign of Terror? The Jacobins who later gave way to Napoleon, who became an absolute dictator?

[Crylante]

I enjoy the conservations happening here.The best thing is that I wanted all of these replies. Of course the "Libertarian" Socialist and conservatives criticize me, and I enjoy their response.


I do have to say that I'm not fascist. If anything, you should compare me to the Jacobins of the French revolution, or maybe various pre-Marxist forms of socialism. Historically, many French political theorist believe in the ideals I've shown. I see my ideology as being the revival of Non-Marxist Socialism. Socialism that was rejected by Marx and Engels, socialism and was dwarfed by Marxism.


The "Libertarian" Socialist claim that Marxist-Leninist and other state socialist ruined the word of socialism, but I think it's the other way around. The Anarcho-Communist and Syndicalist praise various revolts and rebellions, but they never reach their goals. Anarchist Catalonia did not abolish capitalism, and it had to remove capitalist by force. To remove them by force is coercive, and the anarchist execute their enemies. Which is coercive. George Orwell worked with the anarchist, and his experience in that land lead the foundations for "1984".Yet this "socialist" supported the Red Scare. Today, these anarchist influenced by him believe that the "Free" revolution is coming, and they point to societies like rojava.A society that will fail to the Turks and will be reconquered by Assad.

I mean, given that one of the things that set the Jacobins apart from other French revolutionaries was their support for universal male suffrage, if I remember correctly, and you stated that "the working class aren't educated enough to control the state", I think that's quite tenuous.

That's not even getting into the issue of whether the Jacobins are a good rolemodel in terms of politics.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Found it surprising that "socialism" was the other half of the formal term for the Nazi party.

Found it surprising that “liberal democratic” was on both halfs of the formal name for a far-right party in Russia. Obviously, lying about what you believe is impossible. The USSR was therefore democratic and North Korea is free and egalitarian. And National Bolsheviks would totally be in total agreement with the real Bolsheviks. Some rich guy who works people to death also cares about the workers he is killing and Marxism-Leninism is based off Marxism and Leninism.

[Page]

What is the purpose in defeating capitalism if not to liberate the people from subjugation? Your ideology is nothing more than subjugating the population to an oligarchy of bureaucrats rather than to an oligarchy of capitalists. You place order and stability above liberty, but if order and stability were preferable then people would volunteer to live in prisons. You want to suppress hedonist desires, why? So people can focus entirely on loyalty to the state? Are we human beings or are we human resources?

It seems to me that you're proposing fascism with extra socialism, which ironically retains all the worst features of capitalism - the transformation of people into capital and a never-ending obligation to produce for one's boss.

[Communal concils]

I enjoy the conservations happening here.The best thing is that I wanted all of these replies. Of course the "Libertarian" Socialist and conservatives criticize me, and I enjoy their response.


I do have to say that I'm not fascist. If anything, you should compare me to the Jacobins of the French revolution, or maybe various pre-Marxist forms of socialism. Historically, many French political theorist believe in the ideals I've shown. I see my ideology as being the revival of Non-Marxist Socialism. Socialism that was rejected by Marx and Engels, socialism and was dwarfed by Marxism.


The "Libertarian" Socialist claim that Marxist-Leninist and other state socialist ruined the word of socialism, but I think it's the other way around. The Anarcho-Communist and Syndicalist praise various revolts and rebellions, but they never reach their goals. Anarchist Catalonia did not abolish capitalism, and it had to remove capitalist by force. To remove them by force is coercive, and the anarchist execute their enemies. Which is coercive. George Orwell worked with the anarchist, and his experience in that land lead the foundations for "1984".Yet this "socialist" supported the Red Scare. Today, these anarchist influenced by him believe that the "Free" revolution is coming, and they point to societies like rojava.A society that will fail to the Turks and will be reconquered by Assad.

You compare yourself to the Jacobins? The Jacobins as in "the people who literally killed 40,000 people in Paris alone because they didn't agree with them", who were so bad that when they were in charge it was called the Reign of Terror? The Jacobins who later gave way to Napoleon, who became an absolute dictator?

Teutonic Order killed people, and the pope embraced the crudsades.Would christianity spread to the Baltics quickly if it were not enforce by a power structure.The Jacobins also killed people, but so did any insitution with power prior and during their time.They change in many aspects over the revolution,and they did what any revolution and counter revolution did.They killed those that ruined their lives.The Monarchy lead it's people to starve, they allowed for the military failures for the French-Indian war and gotten heavily involved in the american war of independance,which made them go into debt.For everything the Jacobins did, the Bourbons have been doing for longer.

[Communal concils]

I enjoy the conservations happening here.The best thing is that I wanted all of these replies. Of course the "Libertarian" Socialist and conservatives criticize me, and I enjoy their response.


I do have to say that I'm not fascist. If anything, you should compare me to the Jacobins of the French revolution, or maybe various pre-Marxist forms of socialism. Historically, many French political theorist believe in the ideals I've shown. I see my ideology as being the revival of Non-Marxist Socialism. Socialism that was rejected by Marx and Engels, socialism and was dwarfed by Marxism.


The "Libertarian" Socialist claim that Marxist-Leninist and other state socialist ruined the word of socialism, but I think it's the other way around. The Anarcho-Communist and Syndicalist praise various revolts and rebellions, but they never reach their goals. Anarchist Catalonia did not abolish capitalism, and it had to remove capitalist by force. To remove them by force is coercive, and the anarchist execute their enemies. Which is coercive. George Orwell worked with the anarchist, and his experience in that land lead the foundations for "1984".Yet this "socialist" supported the Red Scare. Today, these anarchist influenced by him believe that the "Free" revolution is coming, and they point to societies like rojava.A society that will fail to the Turks and will be reconquered by Assad.

You claim you're not Fascist or NazBol/Strasserist, but your beliefs show otherwise, even if you deny it.

Explain how I'm fascist.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I enjoy the conservations happening here.The best thing is that I wanted all of these replies. Of course the "Libertarian" Socialist and conservatives criticize me, and I enjoy their response.


I do have to say that I'm not fascist. If anything, you should compare me to the Jacobins of the French revolution, or maybe various pre-Marxist forms of socialism. Historically, many French political theorist believe in the ideals I've shown. I see my ideology as being the revival of Non-Marxist Socialism. Socialism that was rejected by Marx and Engels, socialism and was dwarfed by Marxism.


The "Libertarian" Socialist claim that Marxist-Leninist and other state socialist ruined the word of socialism, but I think it's the other way around. The Anarcho-Communist and Syndicalist praise various revolts and rebellions, but they never reach their goals. Anarchist Catalonia did not abolish capitalism, and it had to remove capitalist by force. To remove them by force is coercive, and the anarchist execute their enemies. Which is coercive. George Orwell worked with the anarchist, and his experience in that land lead the foundations for "1984".Yet this "socialist" supported the Red Scare. Today, these anarchist influenced by him believe that the "Free" revolution is coming, and they point to societies like rojava.A society that will fail to the Turks and will be reconquered by Assad.

You claim you're not Fascist or NazBol/Strasserist, but your beliefs show otherwise, even if you deny it.

Strasserism is still left-wing though.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

True
But the mustache on Papa Adolf is the only rival of Daddy Stalin, so I feel obliged to mention him

Hitler has a trash mustache. Stalin’s is epic. If you further develop and distort communist theory, you must have facial hair that is better than your ideas.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Explain how I'm fascist.

If you say with “I’m not a fascist, but...” there is a high chance you are a fascist.

[Karu Nadu]

True
But the mustache on Papa Adolf is the only rival of Daddy Stalin, so I feel obliged to mention him

Hitler has a trash mustache. Stalin’s is epic. If you further develop and distort communist theory, you must have facial hair that is better than your ideas.

[Page]

You claim you're not Fascist or NazBol/Strasserist, but your beliefs show otherwise, even if you deny it.

Explain how I'm fascist.

In your own words:

"Enemies would be everywhere, both foreign and domestic" - Fascists rely on the existence of a supposed enemy. Sometimes the enemy is the Jews, sometimes the gypsies, sometimes the communists, sometimes the workers' unions. In any case, this siege mentality is a hallmark of fascism.

"Order and stability" - Core values of fascism. While desiring order and stability is not itself fascist, prioritizing those things above liberty is always found on the road to fascism.

"Hedonist desires should be banned" - Fascists demand total loyalty of the population and hate that people pursue their own desires, because they are doing that rather than serving the state.

"The oligarchy must be led by a single party" - Fascists suppress all dissent and give the state as much power as possible.

[Communal concils]

I enjoy the conservations happening here.The best thing is that I wanted all of these replies. Of course the "Libertarian" Socialist and conservatives criticize me, and I enjoy their response.


I do have to say that I'm not fascist. If anything, you should compare me to the Jacobins of the French revolution, or maybe various pre-Marxist forms of socialism. Historically, many French political theorist believe in the ideals I've shown. I see my ideology as being the revival of Non-Marxist Socialism. Socialism that was rejected by Marx and Engels, socialism and was dwarfed by Marxism.


The "Libertarian" Socialist claim that Marxist-Leninist and other state socialist ruined the word of socialism, but I think it's the other way around. The Anarcho-Communist and Syndicalist praise various revolts and rebellions, but they never reach their goals. Anarchist Catalonia did not abolish capitalism, and it had to remove capitalist by force. To remove them by force is coercive, and the anarchist execute their enemies. Which is coercive. George Orwell worked with the anarchist, and his experience in that land lead the foundations for "1984".Yet this "socialist" supported the Red Scare. Today, these anarchist influenced by him believe that the "Free" revolution is coming, and they point to societies like rojava.A society that will fail to the Turks and will be reconquered by Assad.

I mean, given that one of the things that set the Jacobins apart from other French revolutionaries was their support for universal male suffrage, if I remember correctly, and you stated that "the working class aren't educated enough to control the state", I think that's quite tenuous.

That's not even getting into the issue of whether the Jacobins are a good rolemodel in terms of politics.

Elections are good, however some people should not vote. That's simply because not all people can think for themselves. The Jacobins may support universal suffrage, but they had complete regardless of the votes. If anything the Jacobins were oligarchs. They only see themselves as the rightful vanguard of the revolution. It is the intellects like Robespierre that govern the nation.

[Toaslandia]

This is kinda the opposite of socialism. First of all, just having any one claim power over a legitimate government is insane. The Roman Empire fell because ambitious generals used their armies to become Emperor, so your "Leftist Movement" would just be Rome 2: Coup Boogaloo. Second of all, I'm a socialist and your idea of "the means justify the ends" is what most Dictators say when they're committing genocide. The means, unless there is no alternative, should not justify the ends.

[Communal concils]

Explain how I'm fascist.

In your own words:

"Enemies would be everywhere, both foreign and domestic" - Fascists rely on the existence of a supposed enemy. Sometimes the enemy is the Jews, sometimes the gypsies, sometimes the communists, sometimes the workers' unions. In any case, this siege mentality is a hallmark of fascism.

"Order and stability" - Core values of fascism. While desiring order and stability is not itself fascist, prioritizing those things above liberty is always found on the road to fascism.

"Hedonist desires should be banned" - Fascists demand total loyalty of the population and hate that people pursue their own desires, because they are doing that rather than serving the state.

"The oligarchy must be led by a single party" - Fascists suppress all dissent and give the state as much power as possible.

Unlike the fascist, I don't see the nation as the ultimate thing, but as a tool. It's the tool required to improves people's life. All people are ment to be equal, and to me that means preventing other forces from ruining other people's lives. You may say that the system would actually do that, but I don't simply believe in a traditional authoritarian nation. Humanity is a irrational creature, and it has the ability to ruin it's self. Every society has it's enemies, Order and Stability are things that even the liberal democracies seek. I think their should be a constitution and separation in powers, and I believe that people need to be saved from the mistakes of other(even themselves).Not only that ,but freedoms can contradict it's self. What if a man wants to sell drugs to young child, what if the neo-Nazis want to say how the Jews own every thing. To support free speech means to allow hatred and love of all types, to believe in the will to do all things means to freedom from others. Murder is a example of this.