Ideal for a New Leftist Movement

[Karu Nadu]

: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.

Yeah, well I was probably the most original idea to begin with, so I'm sorry to diminish its originality.

[The New California Republic]

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

It applies to everyone across the board, they have made it clear in their previous posts that it would be applied to everyone.

[Communal concils]

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.

---

Simply a opinion, and it's emotional.

Ineffective response is ineffective.

1.It's not weird. It's possible to have a religion and still be on the left. Many Proto-socialist movement advocated for the social control of property and resources. As for restricting non-reproductive sex, sexuality has been infested by Capitalism. A sex worker in many parts of the world has to give most of their money to a boss. Most are only working in it to get a living wage, at least a way to sustain their life.


2.Non-reproductive sex quickly becomes Hedonism in most cases. What's the point in it if the whole existence of it was centered on reproduction. All animals have sex for reproduction(unless something went wrong),he same should be said for humans(because we are animals

3.The point is about the limits of Hedonism .If a society truly believes this, then everything that creates pleasure should be allowed(which means that harmful behaviors are okay in that society).

4.It is justified in preventing STDs and sexual abuse.

5.Rape is not allowed in Democracies . However, it's bad at preventing it. It has happened to the point in which people are insensitive to it.


6.The argument can be used against you.

[Communal concils]

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

I wouldn't be that harsh on married couples. However, marriage should be redefined. It should just be an agreement to reproduce. However, marriage would become "Extreme friendship" in the system I propose The Couples main importance wouldn't be focus only on sexual matters, but of mutual ties and economic support. With this, a better family structure could be created.

[The New California Republic]

As for restricting non-reproductive sex, sexuality has been infested by Capitalism.

You can take capitalism out of sex without banning non-reproductive sex completely. Using your logic, you cannot take capitalism out of industry without banning industry completely. See how nonsensical your system is?

---

Non-reproductive sex quickly becomes Hedonism in most cases.

Source for that shit. Please. Try. I'll wait.

---

All animals have sex for reproduction(unless something went wrong),he same should be said for humans(because we are animals

So fucking what? Animals have sex for pleasure too.

---

The point is about the limits of Hedonism .If a society truly believes this, then everything that creates pleasure should be allowed(which means that harmful behaviors are okay in that society).

Let me tell you again, since clearly this didn't sink in the first time: non-reproductive sex does not equal hedonism.

---

It is justified in preventing STDs and sexual abuse.

Better contraception provision, good healthcare, and decent reporting can go a long way prevent all those things. Banning non-reproductive sex is not the answer.

---

Rape is not allowed in Democracies . However, it's bad at preventing it. It has happened to the point in which people are insensitive to it.

Nonsense. There is no evidence to suggest that people are "insensitive" to rape because they live in democracies.

[Makersaulache]

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

I wouldn't be that harsh on married couples. However, marriage should be redefined. It should just be an agreement to reproduce. However, marriage would become "Extreme friendship" in the system I propose The Couples main importance wouldn't be focus only on sexual matters, but of mutual ties and economic support. With this, a better family structure could be created.

Sooo a loveless family? Think of the children what will they do without loving parents? And if you're gonna ban it you need to apply the same amount of harshness to all citizens.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

United Central Left with Kemalism and Social Liberalism It will be useful for the country.

[The New California Republic]

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

I wouldn't be that harsh on married couples. However, marriage should be redefined. It should just be an agreement to reproduce. However, marriage would become "Extreme friendship" in the system I propose The Couples main importance wouldn't be focus only on sexual matters, but of mutual ties and economic support. With this, a better family structure could be created.

What about gay couples? Could they get married? Would they be allowed to have sex?

[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.

I wouldn't be that harsh on married couples. However, marriage should be redefined. It should just be an agreement to reproduce. However, marriage would become "Extreme friendship" in the system I propose The Couples main importance wouldn't be focus only on sexual matters, but of mutual ties and economic support. With this, a better family structure could be created.

That's a bit of reinventing the wheel my dude, that's already the case with marriage.

Also, alot of times recreational sex in marriage leads to procreation, you're shooting yourself in the foot if you want couples to reproduce, but penalize them for having sex without the initial intention to get pregnant.

[Communal concils]

: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.

It would actually be different from many other societal systems that are called "Totalitarian".

Let I'll try to reexamine the summary.

1.The Part will actually be allowed to be Diverse. Different strategies and concepts would be allowed. Think of the ideal of the "Big Tent"(a method in which a political party seeks to diversify the view points with in it's self).It would be one party with no independent opposition, however it will have different fractions. Also voting will exist.


2.Individuals are encourage to report sexual identities considered a harmful, how ever their is a court system. They should back their claims with evidence, and the accused shouldn't get punish with out a fair trial.

3.people aren't allowed to have Non-reproductive sex. However the sex allowed would be focused on Natalism. Their will be attempts to show the populous the reproductive method is better than those that don't make offspring. celibacy and asexualism would be encourage as a method for those that don't chose reproduction.


4.The Vanguard or Oligarchs will try to befriend the masses. They must not distinguish themselves from the Proletariat, and all members with corruption will be force to resign. A constitution will limit their power.

5.Freedom of religion will remain. Freedom of Culture will also be supported and protected. A person could speak there dialect and not be persecuted for it.Racial and Gender Equality will also be supported and protected. Depending on disability, a individual will not be seen as "useless Scum". A policy focus on preventing Birth Defects will also be a priority.


6.The Economy will before the people. Welfare will be used for the Working class. Protectionism will help single employee Businesses not compete with foreign Megacompanies. Also Exporting will be valued over importing. Mass production and industrialization will be the number one economic policy.


7.That is better than making your entire population obese. Obesity kills. Also, health care is something that should be easily accessed to the people. Destroying harmful consumption is more desirable to me than a city that is dying form disease.

I find it okay to gain power through the existing apparatus,it can be destroyed from within.That does not really require going against the law.

[The New California Republic]

Individuals are encourage to report sexual identities considered a harmful, how ever their is a court system. They should back their claims with evidence, and the accused shouldn't get punish with out a fair trial. ...

What a crock of shit. You have previously admitted that you'd have the death penalty for non-reproductive sex, which you are now strangely keeping quiet about.

people aren't allowed to have Non-reproductive sex. However the sex allowed would be focused on Natalism. Their will be attempts to show the populous the reproductive method is better than those that don't make offspring. celibacy and asexualism would be encourage as a method for those that don't chose reproduction.

So, again, homosexuals would be banned from having sex, and would face the death penalty if they did. Absolutely fucking awful. I'd take great pleasure in creating some underground safe spaces for gay people. Any goons you sent to try to shut it down would either be paid off or end up not leaving the place alive.

You do realize that this entire system will never happen, right?

[Doing it Rightland]

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

1. You're already rejecting an individual's right to property, free expression, right to their body, and much more. Why stop at religion, which is an old institutionalized entity (and you've noted old institutions ought to go).

2. Yes, people have different concepts of freedom. Yet, freedom is generally not associated by autocrats controlling all of the people and resources. Hedonism is justified by pleasure, yes. But if people value pleasure as the most important, then they naturally want to preserve themselves and that which pleasures them. Ergo, they don't destroy themselves unless it maximizes pleasure. I'm not saying self-mutilation isn't crazy, it's just a different case compared to other "freedoms". Your right to "do it" with someone not solely for procreation isn't going to leave you as dead as mutilation. There's a risk of disease, yes, but if you're not stupid about it, you'll be fine.

3. Pleasure =/= Bad. Also, some of those self-preservation animal instincts give us the drive to do incredible things.

4. The key facet of democracy is that since everyone has freedom, you can't take it away. Your state, on the other hand, will (and I quote you): "seize the freedom of others". And don't say rape is an example of democracy's flaws. Rape is illegal, horrid, and in no way limited to democracies. And you really think banning non-procreation based intercourse is going to stop rape? Making rape illegal hasn't stopped it, so nothing would really change.

5. Your state is a magical utopia in your mind. It denies all facets of human nature, society, and flies in the face of all the progress made thus far, and expects the whole of society to be a hivemind. How else do you think people would consent to the forced redistributions, "disappearances" of anyone doing anything remotely human, or a number of other things too. Enslaving humanity isn't the way to save it, and the society that you want that would last for thousands of years would be done in a matter of decades max.

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.

Also, you've got them backwards. It's the ends justifying the means. If the means justify the ends, then disappearances justify your state. When the ends justify the means, your dystopia justifies the disappearances.

Edit: I also never got a response to this:

People called nearly all types of state socialist "Red fascism".Economically, I have a completely different view from them. Socially, their are lot's of fundamental differences. I am a egalitarian in economic and social terms. All people are to supposed to be equal. To reach this, destroying the old order is a requirement. Fascism reimagines the old, but I seek obliteration of the old society. What kind of fascist believes in the destruction of gender roles, and seeks to form policies for the population as a whole.

1) Economically, in both fascism and socialism the government planned the economy to a rather high degree. Hitler did it. Mussolini tried it (and botched it). Stalin and Mao both did it.

2) Yes, all people should be equally poor, equally enslaved to your oligarchic ruling elites.

3) You ask for obliteration of the old. Yet you're just bringing the old back. Think about this:

• A large mass of less-educated peoples controlling the means of productions and working together, not owning property, to drive the economy.
• A group of elites through which governance occurs and through which all the wealth passes through for redistribution.

This isn't a new order. It's literally feudalism. You have the peasants who control the tools and animals, the means of production. You have the lords, who manage and distribute the wealth, and who make the laws of the land. The masses answer to and prop up the elites, and the system stays balanced.

And don't say "oh, the elites are gonna redistribute the wealth equally because yay revolution." You and I both know that equal redistribution would fall apart in an instant. It's happened in the past, and it'll happen again. And what's left of your revolution is the same order you want to destroy. Wealthy rulers controlling the masses.

Human nature is difficult to overcome. You can't just force celibacy on everyone, take all their wealth at gunpoint, force them to work for other people without rewarding them, and expect them to magically want to contribute to the system.

[Communal concils]

Individuals are encourage to report sexual identities considered a harmful, how ever their is a court system. They should back their claims with evidence, and the accused shouldn't get punish with out a fair trial. ...

What a crock of shit. You have previously admitted that you'd have the death penalty for non-reproductive sex, which you are now strangely keeping quiet about.

people aren't allowed to have Non-reproductive sex. However the sex allowed would be focused on Natalism. Their will be attempts to show the populous the reproductive method is better than those that don't make offspring. celibacy and asexualism would be encourage as a method for those that don't chose reproduction.

So, again, homosexuals would be banned from having sex, and would face the death penalty if they did. Absolutely fucking awful. I'd take great pleasure in creating some underground safe spaces for gay people. Any goons you sent to try to shut it down would either be paid off or end up not leaving the place alive.

You do realize that this entire system will never happen, right?

1.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.


2.Wouldn't the attempted killing of authorities create a public opinion against Homosexuality in general. Though people of all sexualities would be treated equal under the law. Also how "safe" are these safe spaces. Wouldn't the individuals in this "secret" Society have different desires. Also wouldn't there be more than one group of authorities to come. How do you root out spies. Such secret society would all for the creation of conspiracy theories that would hurt you more than any law would.

[The New Teutonic Order]

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

It would actually be different from many other societal systems that are called "Totalitarian".

Let I'll try to reexamine the summary.

1.The Part will actually be allowed to be Diverse. Different strategies and concepts would be allowed. Think of the ideal of the "Big Tent"(a method in which a political party seeks to diversify the view points with in it's self).It would be one party with no independent opposition, however it will have different fractions. Also voting will exist.


2.Individuals are encourage to report sexual identities considered a harmful, how ever their is a court system. They should back their claims with evidence, and the accused shouldn't get punish with out a fair trial.

3.people aren't allowed to have Non-reproductive sex. However the sex allowed would be focused on Natalism. Their will be attempts to show the populous the reproductive method is better than those that don't make offspring. celibacy and asexualism would be encourage as a method for those that don't chose reproduction.


4.The Vanguard or Oligarchs will try to befriend the masses. They must not distinguish themselves from the Proletariat, and all members with corruption will be force to resign. A constitution will limit their power.

5.Freedom of religion will remain. Freedom of Culture will also be supported and protected. A person could speak there dialect and not be persecuted for it.Racial and Gender Equality will also be supported and protected. Depending on disability, a individual will not be seen as "useless Scum". A policy focus on preventing Birth Defects will also be a priority.


6.The Economy will before the people. Welfare will be used for the Working class. Protectionism will help single employee Businesses not compete with foreign Megacompanies. Also Exporting will be valued over importing. Mass production and industrialization will be the number one economic policy.


7.That is better than making your entire population obese. Obesity kills. Also, health care is something that should be easily accessed to the people. Destroying harmful consumption is more desirable to me than a city that is dying form disease.

I find it okay to gain power through the existing apparatus,it can be destroyed from within.That does not really require going against the law.

1. So you say you hate democracies, but you'd allow voting? Also, I'm assuming that only those who agree with leftist ideologies would be allowed to vote.

2. People with sexual identities shouldn't be punished in the first place.

3. I forget, what other regime was obsessed with childbirth? Oh yeah.

4. Aw, the dictators are our friends! Also, what would this constitution even have in it?

5. What you say you support is all good. However, I'm a bit concerned when you say "preventing birth defects". What exactly does that mean?

6. It might take a long time to enact this policy... perhaps five years?

7. What's better than being obese?

[Communal concils]

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

1. You're already rejecting an individual's right to property, free expression, right to their body, and much more. Why stop at religion, which is an old institutionalized entity (and you've noted old institutions ought to go).

2. Yes, people have different concepts of freedom. Yet, freedom is generally not associated by autocrats controlling all of the people and resources. Hedonism is justified by pleasure, yes. But if people value pleasure as the most important, then they naturally want to preserve themselves and that which pleasures them. Ergo, they don't destroy themselves unless it maximizes pleasure. I'm not saying self-mutilation isn't crazy, it's just a different case compared to other "freedoms". Your right to "do it" with someone not solely for procreation isn't going to leave you as dead as mutilation. There's a risk of disease, yes, but if you're not stupid about it, you'll be fine.

3. Pleasure =/= Bad. Also, some of those self-preservation animal instincts give us the drive to do incredible things.

4. The key facet of democracy is that since everyone has freedom, you can't take it away. Your state, on the other hand, will (and I quote you): "seize the freedom of others". And don't say rape is an example of democracy's flaws. Rape is illegal, horrid, and in no way limited to democracies. And you really think banning non-procreation based intercourse is going to stop rape? Making rape illegal hasn't stopped it, so nothing would really change.

5. Your state is a magical utopia in your mind. It denies all facets of human nature, society, and flies in the face of all the progress made thus far, and expects the whole of society to be a hivemind. How else do you think people would consent to the forced redistributions, "disappearances" of anyone doing anything remotely human, or a number of other things too. Enslaving humanity isn't the way to save it, and the society that you want that would last for thousands of years would be done in a matter of decades max.

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.

Also, you've got them backwards. It's the ends justifying the means. If the means justify the ends, then disappearances justify your state. When the ends justify the means, your dystopia justifies the disappearances.

1.I don't think everything should be illegal. Religion is a constantly changing structure ,so it would not make sense for me to just ban it.if you could change the conditions of a society, then there will be a change in how religions respond. Secularism is enough, because it's power is already stripped away.Property can be owned,it just doesn't need to be owned by a capitalist.In terms of otehrthings, I would actually support the freedom to manythings.Like scientific reseach.


2.There are many issue's with "Sexual Freedoms" of Liberalism.If a Hedonist seeks less pain,then they will ofcourse maximize the feelings of "goodness".People however sometimes like pain, and pain is pleasure to some.If Pleasure is the most important thing to the libertine individual beyond restrictions, then everything that any individual seeks will be practiced(Which includes sexual assault). Since this varies though out individuals, there are endless ways of things going.This however makes the "deviants" of repulsive behaviors able to have Their "pleasure",no matter the cost.

3.Pleasure can evolve into negative things(even if it seems positive).If a man injects himself with certain drugs constantly,he will eventually suffer.It is his fault, but would he been smarter if he was living in a better place.
For every positive thing a animalistic urge gives,there is also a negative one.


4.In a Democracy, every one does have "freedom"(liberal form).However, democracy can oust it's self.If enough people desire to destroy it, then it will be destroyed.Brazil is a corrupt nation.It has racial division, it has lot's of poverty.Since it elects ineffective leaders all the time, the country still hasn't fixed it's problems.Austria in the 1930's voted for the Austrian equivilance to The Nazi party,and it was the people's will to allow Germany to annex Austria.If Democracy is so good, then it should accept it's own destruction. A democracy should respect the majorities veiws, no matter the consequences.


5.I don't believ in a hivemind, nor do I beleive in a Utopia.A perfect world does not exist.So there musut be steps taken to improve people's lives.The Liberal concept of "progress" has allowed for it's suppose enemies to win.Even if it does make "progress" , then it wouldn't have lasted long.People consent to higher powers(including state) because they have hope in it doing something.Majority of people are not Ideological, but rather want something to solve their current situation.In a way Authoritarianism is a Human thing.English came from Latin,the romens speak Latin.They conquer and slaughter their neighbors,we only speeach latin inspired languages because of coercsion from a insitution.Christianity spread across europe through the crusades,it would have spread slower if it was not fro force.The British spread their ideals world wide, and that was with force.Most of the wstern values were spread by that.I don't seek a society base on oppression, but I seek to chnage humanities future.before you say that It isn't humanities nature, democracies like the united states had spread through force and forced people to live under it's system.

6.Not all ideals are truth, not all ideals improve people, not all ideals help. It's justified because nearly
every system does the same.

[Angleter]

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.

I'm no socialist myself, so I wouldn't call myself an expert on this, but I'm not sure what's meant to be 'socialist' about having both the state and the economy permanently outside the control of the working class.

Also, it's 'the ends justify the means', not the other way around.

[Torrocca]

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.

I'm no socialist myself, so I wouldn't call myself an expert on this, but I'm not sure what's meant to be 'socialist' about having both the state and the economy permanently outside the control of the working class.

There's nothing Socialist about it, so you're right about that.

[Communal concils]

It would actually be different from many other societal systems that are called "Totalitarian".

Let I'll try to reexamine the summary.

1.The Part will actually be allowed to be Diverse. Different strategies and concepts would be allowed. Think of the ideal of the "Big Tent"(a method in which a political party seeks to diversify the view points with in it's self).It would be one party with no independent opposition, however it will have different fractions. Also voting will exist.


2.Individuals are encourage to report sexual identities considered a harmful, how ever their is a court system. They should back their claims with evidence, and the accused shouldn't get punish with out a fair trial.

3.people aren't allowed to have Non-reproductive sex. However the sex allowed would be focused on Natalism. Their will be attempts to show the populous the reproductive method is better than those that don't make offspring. celibacy and asexualism would be encourage as a method for those that don't chose reproduction.


4.The Vanguard or Oligarchs will try to befriend the masses. They must not distinguish themselves from the Proletariat, and all members with corruption will be force to resign. A constitution will limit their power.

5.Freedom of religion will remain. Freedom of Culture will also be supported and protected. A person could speak there dialect and not be persecuted for it.Racial and Gender Equality will also be supported and protected. Depending on disability, a individual will not be seen as "useless Scum". A policy focus on preventing Birth Defects will also be a priority.


6.The Economy will before the people. Welfare will be used for the Working class. Protectionism will help single employee Businesses not compete with foreign Megacompanies. Also Exporting will be valued over importing. Mass production and industrialization will be the number one economic policy.


7.That is better than making your entire population obese. Obesity kills. Also, health care is something that should be easily accessed to the people. Destroying harmful consumption is more desirable to me than a city that is dying form disease.

I find it okay to gain power through the existing apparatus,it can be destroyed from within.That does not really require going against the law.

1. So you say you hate democracies, but you'd allow voting? Also, I'm assuming that only those who agree with leftist ideologies would be allowed to vote.

2. People with sexual identities shouldn't be punished in the first place.

3. I forget, what other regime was obsessed with childbirth? Oh yeah.

4. Aw, the dictators are our friends! Also, what would this constitution even have in it?

5. What you say you support is all good. However, I'm a bit concerned when you say "preventing birth defects". What exactly does that mean?

6. It might take a long time to enact this policy... perhaps five years?

7. What's better than being obese?

1.It really depends on the type of "Leftist" are talking about. I don't deny that certain people wouldn't be allowed to vote.

2.This ideal wouldn't be restrictive to people of a certain sexuality. It will affect the "Straights".

3.The nazis did it base upon Racial lines, I believe that Natalism will help countries with low birth rates.The Germans thought the benefit was on the Military,I Believe that the benefit is Economical.


4.1A.Right to Religion
2B.The Freedom to practice one's culture
3C.Citizens desire the right to employement
4D.Men and Women are equal in many ways,therefor they should be treated the same.The Only main differance between the two is the obvious sexual dimorphism
5E.The Right to Education
6F.Right to Security
7G.All Humans are equal regardless of race
8H.Citizens should vote ,however they must prove themselve in their Jobs.

9I.Rights to Basic needs
10J.All people born and living with in the country for a certain amount of time are Citizens
11k.Every leader is elected every decade,and they rule for a decade.All state branches will have elections.
12L.The re shall be nothing beyond the consitution.All government authorities must follow the "rule of Law".


5.Birth defects will be prvented through Abortion


6.it depends on nation or situation

7.Being balance in wieght is the heathest body form, neither being too Skinny or fat is good.

[Kubra]

yeah uh let's talk about that
what's wrong with non-missionary sex for purposes other than procreation

[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.

I'm no socialist myself, so I wouldn't call myself an expert on this, but I'm not sure what's meant to be 'socialist' about having both the state and the economy permanently outside the control of the working class.

Also, it's 'the ends justify the means', not the other way around.

It would be socialist because the state would allow the people to own the means of production. The state becomes a servant in economic terms I do support the ideal of Cooperatives. So I am a socialist, because the means of production should be own collectively by a group.

[Communal concils]

I'm no socialist myself, so I wouldn't call myself an expert on this, but I'm not sure what's meant to be 'socialist' about having both the state and the economy permanently outside the control of the working class.

There's nothing Socialist about it, so you're right about that.

It's just a claim without backing. Socialism is an ideology. I support a Centrally planned Economy, but I wouldn't have a problem with workers controlling their own organizations.

[Torrocca]

There's nothing Socialist about it, so you're right about that.

It's just a claim without backing. Socialism is an ideology. I support a Centrally planned Economy, but I wouldn't have a problem with workers controlling their own organizations.

"The Working class aren't educated enough to control the state."

"State control over the economy is a desire."

WoW, iT's ReALLy SoCiALiSm!!1!

[Korouse]

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.

[Korouse]

This is sort of a feeling I've been having for a week, realizing that the spirit of revolution is obviously very dead in imperialist western nations, just as Lenin saw with the British labor aristocracy. Economistic demands (i.e. 'the working class must rule etc etc... german steel workers ONLY make 20 dollars an hour! can you believe that?) aren't the song of the day, but that doesn't undercut the potential for revolutionary socialist movements to respond to the re-ocurring contradictions within these imperial societies that are honest and straight-forward. Of course I'm replying to a thread with memes like this:

"this Oligarchy must be lead by a single party, and this party must lead a republic of self restriction ."

but it's a semi-related thing I wanted to get off my chest.

[The New California Republic]

What a crock of shit. You have previously admitted that you'd have the death penalty for non-reproductive sex, which you are now strangely keeping quiet about.

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.