Byzconia wrote:I don't really get the references to Trotsky people keep making. He'd be opposed to both points 2 and 7 (at least). Comparison to Stalinism is much more apt.
I think the reference is that, given his wildly unpopular views, many would like to see an icepick in his skull.
Communal concils wrote:1.Violence is useful in going against possible threats. Democracy as a government form is already dead, no one really lives in a system of popular vote. The representative republics of today are ment to be a competion of how can retain the most control.
Yes, democracy is dead, and that's why its only used in MOST OF THE WORLD. (Come on, dude)
Communal concils wrote:2.The West may not actually attack the rights of it's minor ethnic groups, but it does fail to end it. he united states doesn't educate it's African-American population. Europe however caused it's own issues. If they didn't support the constant bombing of many middle eastern nations, then their wouldn't be a migrant crisis this large.
Yes, instead we would have a full fledged caliphate trying to wage eternal war against our society. I don't fully condone the actions of the US in the middle east, but I'd much prefer them to be fighting radical anti-democratic insurgents that pose a threat to the political stability of the world than not. And please, don't just tell me the US doesn't educate its African American population. The whole education system (especially when race is included) is an entirely different and incredibly complicated situation. If you'd like to get into it, we can.
Communal concils wrote:3.War that western Governments do are foolish. War is to retain what you already have. It's purpose is used incorrectly. Globalist and neo-liberal companies feed of the people's work. Such companies have a monopoly on weapons and pay politicians for support. I'm not a supporter of the current Chinese Government, but there system is truly "Chinese characteristics". It's market monopoly, it's production is just an adaption to it's own gains. These are not western, china is only doing what any other country would do economically.
You just went in so many different directions here I don't even know where to begin to respond. Could you expand on the many points here, so that I can make a functional analysis?
Communal concils wrote:4.Consolidation is a way of gaining power. If you can unite the people, then you have made Order and stability. Order as in control, stability as in the new order is established correctly.
Yes, consolidation works great and all until you've got to put a gun to the head of most people to do it. Revolutions are inherently divisive. Reforms are the way to go.
Communal concils wrote:5.I do believe in education. Though they are already enslaved. They are enslaved by their own minds. Some of them can't even be swayed by opinion. Even when shoved in their face, they will still reject reality. Why must a try to look so benevolent with uneducated people like them.
Because, educated or not, they're still human beings. The moment when you arbitrarily decide who ought to be treated benevolently and who ought not to be is a dangerous moment, as it's far too easy to slip into discrimination, oppression, and worse.
Communal concils wrote:6.It doesn't sound good to you. You are not the majority of society. Majority of people would support it, only the mentioning the certain words make them not want it. I'm not a hypocrite in this regard, but I think that democracy would kill it's self. If What I suppose doesn't get in power, then something of real danger would.
Yes, the "majority" supports a full blown socialist militant uprising. (dude, listen to yourself). It doesn't matter whether you remove the words "socialist" or not; people do not like autocracy. And democracy isn't going to kill itself anytime soon. Your plans, on the other hand, would put a bullet in the brain of the west in no time. And finally, not every non-militant-socialist out there is dangerous. If you don't get your way, there isn't automatically going to be some terrible situation.