Ideal for a New Leftist Movement

[Juristonia]

My ideals are only horrible to those of a certain political classification,which is obviously most of the critics(including you).

The only thing you've accomplished so far is to get everyone on NS, from the left to the right, to agree that your ideas are ridiculous.
That's pretty rare, so I guess you can pat yourself on the back for that, but that doesn't change the ridiculousness of your ideals.

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.

Tossing a bunch of tired old ideas in a blender and thinking the result is something new and worthwhile does not make it a new idea; it just makes it an incomprehensible mess.

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".

In other words, you were being deliberately vague, even though you keep claiming you weren't, by taking several contradicting arguments and pretending they all collide in to something that makes sense and assuming that somehow made it magically bounce of any criticism, even though there are 23 pages of people telling you otherwise.

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.

Oh hey, something we agree on.
People who write fanfiction usually at least try to write a coherent story.
This is just a jumbled mess of bad ideas that, I agree, are not perfect.

Or anywhere near perfect.
Or even remotely rational.

[Ors Might]

There’s a difference between pedophillia and some harmless bdsm fun.

I'm sure such activities increase the chance of Herpes and other sexual transmitted infections.

Do you have proof or are you talking out your ass?

[Puldania]

This is pretty much just fascism.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

There’s a difference between pedophillia and some harmless bdsm fun.

I'm sure such activities increase the chance of Herpes and other sexual transmitted infections.

If anything, BDSM sex probably has a slightly higher resistance to sexually transmitted infections because it more often than not involves less naked and/or direct contact than regular sex.

[Karu Nadu]

Sounds kinda dictatorial.

I wouldn't believe in a traditional dictatorship, but a complex system of rules and Organizing.

No, this is a dictatorship.

[The New California Republic]

My ideals are only horrible to those of a certain political classification.

Wrong. The full political spectrum of NSGeneral has so far condemned what you are proposing here, so that excuse really doesn't wash I'm afraid.

---

I wouldn't believe in a traditional dictatorship, but a complex system of rules and Organizing.

A non-traditional dictatorship is still a dictatorship. Stop trying obfuscate the criticism by splitting hairs.

---

If I were suddenly living under your proposed system, why the fuck would I be the bitchest of snitches and rat someone out for sleeping with someone and getting a little bit extra for it? What would be my incentive as someone who finds that sort of narkery disgusting?

The Incentive is to root out Pedophillia and harmful sexual activities.However, a reported Individual wouldn't immediantly go to jail(or be executed).There would be a court to handle the situation, and the persecuted would not be punished until proven gulity.

We were talking about homosexuality. Don't you dare throw homosexuality into the same basket as pedophilia. Don't. Just don't.

And the fact that you say that people could be executed for engaging in non-reproductive sex under your system is quite frankly abhorrent.

---

Also, you haven't responded to this yet:

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?

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.

[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.

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.

[Communal concils]

My ideals are only horrible to those of a certain political classification,which is obviously most of the critics(including you).

The only thing you've accomplished so far is to get everyone on NS, from the left to the right, to agree that your ideas are ridiculous.
That's pretty rare, so I guess you can pat yourself on the back for that, but that doesn't change the ridiculousness of your ideals.

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.

Tossing a bunch of tired old ideas in a blender and thinking the result is something new and worthwhile does not make it a new idea; it just makes it an incomprehensible mess.

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".

In other words, you were being deliberately vague, even though you keep claiming you weren't, by taking several contradicting arguments and pretending they all collide in to something that makes sense and assuming that somehow made it magically bounce of any criticism, even though there are 23 pages of people telling you otherwise.

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.

Oh hey, something we agree on.
People who write fanfiction usually at least try to write a coherent story.
This is just a jumbled mess of bad ideas that, I agree, are not perfect.

Or anywhere near perfect.
Or even remotely rational.

This whole discussion is only one part of the website.Not everyone on this website disagrees with me.This is a bias,and I would expect the majority of the opposition to be groups that I criticize.Poeple have the will to defend their ideology, and I've been willing to grant them to speak.

I don't adapt every part of these ideologies to mine,I do have my own concepts.What parts of my belief "Contradict" each other.

[Communal concils]

My ideals are only horrible to those of a certain political classification.

Wrong. The full political spectrum of NSGeneral has so far condemned what you are proposing here, so that excuse really doesn't wash I'm afraid.

---

I wouldn't believe in a traditional dictatorship, but a complex system of rules and Organizing.

A non-traditional dictatorship is still a dictatorship. Stop trying obfuscate the criticism by splitting hairs.

---

The Incentive is to root out Pedophillia and harmful sexual activities.However, a reported Individual wouldn't immediantly go to jail(or be executed).There would be a court to handle the situation, and the persecuted would not be punished until proven gulity.

We were talking about homosexuality. Don't you dare throw homosexuality into the same basket as pedophilia. Don't. Just don't.

And the fact that you say that people could be executed for engaging in non-reproductive sex under your system is quite frankly abhorrent.

---

Also, you haven't responded to this yet:

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


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?

(Image)

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.

1.It's mostly Just Libertarians that criticize me.People that I expect to criticize my beliefs. Yes, Both "Left" and "Right" criticize me. However this is not unity. It is only the 'Frenzy" to criticize.



2.Dictactorships are very diverse, each and every regime has a different belief and way of doing things. Why must we just simplify the this form of government to just a few "Regimes"? I Don't believe in a " Black vs. White" world. People could point out that I do, because I reject Democracy, but democracy has not been tried in it's intended ways. What we call "Democracies" are republics that are hypocrites.They limit the views of a population, and usually restrict their citizen's beliefs. I believe that freedom will always be limited. Tribes for members to traditions, and anarchy was never able to go beyond small communities(but these communities didn't last long).

3.I thought we were talking about sexuality in general.
Pedophilia is not the same as Homosexuality,but it's doomed to overlap with it.However, heterosexual relations can also Overlap with it.Homosexuality can rape, so can heterosexuality. Humanity is an imperfect creature, and it needs to tame it's self. I would consider human desires as a whole degenerate.
The Capital punishment is justified. I did said that people would be in court and go through a system of a faire trial. However people that do sexual activities with dangerous objects deserve consequences, either that or they die of their own consequences.


4.Humanity is diverse, and people will always agree with some ideal and concept. I wouldn't care if people leave. I wouldn't care if citizens started to hide it, in the end it won't matter. In the end, the majority of people won't do it.That is because people are apathetic to things, and authority is no different from this nature of men. People will sacrifice somethings for more.

[Cappuccina]

^The man speaks truth, tbh.

[Communal concils]

^The man speaks truth, tbh.

who speaks the truth?

[Cappuccina]

^The man speaks truth, tbh.

who speaks the truth?

You, I was agreeing with your post above mine.

[The New California Republic]

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

All sex should be shifted towards Natalism. The Ban will be treated as any other law, and that is through the state's apparatus.

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

So under your proposed system there would be a ban on non-procreative sex, but people would be free to practice religion? Are you sure that this isn't a totalitarian theocracy of some sort?

---

It's mostly Just Libertarians that criticize me.People that I expect to criticize my beliefs. Yes, Both "Left" and "Right" criticize me. However this is not unity. It is only the 'Frenzy" to criticize.

The criticism of your "system" is justified because your "system" is a half-baked mess.

---

Humanity is an imperfect creature, and it needs to tame it's self. I would consider human desires as a whole degenerate.

To repeat what I said earlier, you need to not be so prudish when it comes to sex. The banning of non-reproductive sex in your "system" is an aberration that doesn't seem to fit into the rest of it, and you have not justified it at all.

---

The Capital punishment is justified. I did said that people would be in court and go through a system of a faire trial. However people that do sexual activities with dangerous objects deserve consequences, either that or they die of their own consequences.

Capital punishment for non-reproductive sex, such as having sex with a condom or being on the pill, is unbelievably bizarre and completely unjustifiable. And what the fuck are you talking about in terms of "sexual activities with dangerous objects"? You know what, fuck it, I don't even want to know.

---

Humanity is diverse, and people will always agree with some ideal and concept. I wouldn't care if people leave. I wouldn't care if citizens started to hide it, in the end it won't matter. In the end, the majority of people won't do it.

Fucking nonsense. People won't stop having non-reproductive sex just because the state acts like a bunch of prudes by telling them not to do it. It is sheer fantasy to think that they would.

[Cappuccina]

While I agree that the OP's "system" is a bit I'll thought out and contradictory on somethings, he is on the right track to oppose the modern zeitgeist of "freedom above all else" and its tendency towards the libertine .

[Communal concils]

who speaks the truth?

You, I was agreeing with your post above mine.

I like seeing a different opinion. I don't really care if it's criticism or praise, but I like more unique thoughts. Your opinion is not the repeatment of the same arguments, therefor I Thank you.

[The New California Republic]

While I agree that the OP's "system" is a bit I'll thought out and contradictory on somethings, he is on the right track to oppose the modern zeitgeist of "freedom above all else" and its tendency towards the libertine .

I wouldn't call banning non-reproductive sex and trying to enforce it with Stasi-esque tactics and the death penalty as being "on the right track".

[Communal concils]

All sex should be shifted towards Natalism. The Ban will be treated as any other law, and that is through the state's apparatus.

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

So under your proposed system there would be a ban on non-procreative sex, but people would be free to practice religion? Are you sure that this isn't a totalitarian theocracy of some sort?

---

It's mostly Just Libertarians that criticize me.People that I expect to criticize my beliefs. Yes, Both "Left" and "Right" criticize me. However this is not unity. It is only the 'Frenzy" to criticize.

The criticism of your "system" is justified because your "system" is a half-baked mess.

---

Humanity is an imperfect creature, and it needs to tame it's self. I would consider human desires as a whole degenerate.

To repeat what I said earlier, you need to not be so prudish when it comes to sex. The banning of non-reproductive sex in your "system" is an aberration that doesn't seem to fit into the rest of it, and you have not justified it at all.

---

The Capital punishment is justified. I did said that people would be in court and go through a system of a faire trial. However people that do sexual activities with dangerous objects deserve consequences, either that or they die of their own consequences.

Capital punishment for non-reproductive sex, such as having sex with a condom or being on the pill, is unbelievably bizarre and completely unjustifiable. And what the fuck are you talking about in terms of "sexual activities with dangerous objects"? You know what, fuck it, I don't even want to know.

---

Humanity is diverse, and people will always agree with some ideal and concept. I wouldn't care if people leave. I wouldn't care if citizens started to hide it, in the end it won't matter. In the end, the majority of people won't do it.

Fucking nonsense. People won't stop having non-reproductive sex just because the state acts like a bunch of prudes by telling them not to do it. It is sheer fantasy to think that they would.

1.A Theocracy is a Government that is govern by clerical or religious authorities(Like Papal States).I believe in religious freedom. I also don't believe in a official state Religion. Why must I ban culture and religion, why should I reject religion as a individual right?


2.Isn't that the same with you. People have different concepts of freedom. The only thing that Justifies Hedonism is a non-complex concept about "Pleasure". If people put pleasure over all other things, then what prevents people from destroying themselves. I would not call that a "Freedom". What if a person mutilates themselves on purpose, isn't that desire a right under your ideals.


3.It is necessary to be strict in such matters. Pleasure comes in all forms, and the bad has the ability to bring us to the non-intelligent animal's urges.


4.A hedonist society allows all pleasure, feelings over reality can be harmful. In "Democracies", such individuals may even want to seize the freedom of others. Rape is an example of this.


5.I don't believe in a magical utopia in which the human mind becomes a hive mind, but rather a society that will make changes that will go for thousands of years. People will be doing it for as long as mankind lives, but at least the future of countless people can be saved

[Nor Portland]

An initial movement based on ideology is idiotic. It should start out as single-issue activists (such as what we already have) and then when collapse occurs, unite said activists as a singular entity

From then on i'd say topple the current system but what are yallses ideas?

[Communal concils]

While I agree that the OP's "system" is a bit I'll thought out and contradictory on somethings, he is on the right track to oppose the modern zeitgeist of "freedom above all else" and its tendency towards the libertine .

I wouldn't call banning non-reproductive sex and trying to enforce it with Stasi-esque tactics and the death penalty as being "on the right track".

Simply a opinion, and it's emotional.

[Cappuccina]

While I agree that the OP's "system" is a bit I'll thought out and contradictory on somethings, he is on the right track to oppose the modern zeitgeist of "freedom above all else" and its tendency towards the libertine .

I wouldn't call banning non-reproductive sex and trying to enforce it with Stasi-esque tactics and the death penalty as being "on the right track".

Like I stated in my post, I don't agree with his planned tactics, nor do I necessarily agree with banning recreational sex. I do, however, agree with his anti-libertine and anti-capitalism.

[Communal concils]

An initial movement based on ideology is idiotic. It should start out as single-issue activists (such as what we already have) and then when collapse occurs, unite said activists as a singular entity

From then on i'd say topple the current system but what are yallses ideas?

I find that very interesting. I wouldn't deny it because I think that "Means Justifying ends" method of gaining power would even include this. Though, the method of gaining power must depend on situation.

[The New California Republic]

Why must I ban culture and religion, why should I reject religion as a individual right?

I never said that you should, I just pointed out it's weird to allow something like religion—which the left has for the most part been against—but ban non-reproductive sex.

---

The only thing that Justifies Hedonism is a non-complex concept about "Pleasure". If people put pleasure over all other things, then what prevents people from destroying themselves.

Non-reproductive sex does not equal hedonism.

---

What if a person mutilates themselves on purpose, isn't that desire a right under your ideals.

The fuck are you talking about? We were talking about non-reproductive sex...

---

It is necessary to be strict in such matters. Pleasure comes in all forms, and the bad has the ability to bring us to the non-intelligent animal's urges.

You want the death penalty for non-reproductive sex for fuck's sake! It's a punishment that is fucking ridiculously out of proportion with the supposed "crime".

---

A hedonist society allows all pleasure, feelings over reality can be harmful. In "Democracies", such individuals may even want to seize the freedom of others. Rape is an example of this.

Again, non-reproductive sex does not equal hedonism. And rape is not allowed in democracies.

---

I wouldn't call banning non-reproductive sex and trying to enforce it with Stasi-esque tactics and the death penalty as being "on the right track".

(Image)

Simply a opinion, and it's emotional.

Ineffective response is ineffective.

[Karu Nadu]

So, let's summarize this:

A one-party state where people report each other for prostitution, people can't have non-productive sex, a group small of people controls everything, somehow freedom of religion will be retained, the state controls the economy, And the government decides what is healthy for you, so don't bother doing anything you actually want to do, you'll be arrested.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

:eyebrow: So, let's summarize this:

A one-party state where people report each other for prostitution, people can't have non-productive sex, a group small of people controls everything, somehow freedom of religion will be retained, the state controls the economy, And the government decides what is healthy for you, so don't bother doing anything you actually want to do, you'll be arrested.

When you put it that way, it sounds super unoriginal.

[Cappuccina]

The whole "ban non-reproductive sex" thing is pretty overboard, and irrational. I wonder if it applies to even married couples in his view.