Ideal for a New Leftist Movement

[Communal concils]

While I do believe the Socialist leftist movement has been crippled several by Neo Liberal Leftists and Upper Middle Class progressive politics, I don't really think this is the solution.

\

Though, it is necessary to find ways of being socialist, yet reject their Liberalism.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I'm not communist. I'm anti-communist; you do realize that right?

Sounds very commie of you to advocate any working class rights or equality protected by law at all.

I don't recall cheering on the working class, nor saying that anyone left of me is a communist.

[Karu Nadu]

The emergence of a populist left and a populist right truly means we are on the road towards civil war.

But what about...A Populist Center?

Centrist extremists.
Extreme centrists.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

I don't recall cheering on the working class, nor saying that anyone left of me is a communist.

It’s a joke about right wing extremists calling everyone who isn’t them a communist.

[Thermodolia]

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

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

Social democrats never claimed to be socialist.

[Thermodolia]

1.Many of the "Libertarian" strands of socialism would have done the same thing, though perhaps worse. How will an anarchist remove the property of the bourgeoise peacefully, would the majority of people even desire anarchy. The CNT-F.A.I allowed it's members to burn down builds and loot stores. They also had a policy against sex "Work". They have became the very thing that they denounce.


2.You say socialist states keep failing, but you praise Democratic "Socialist".Social Democracy has not solve the issues of Working Men and Women, it gives them free suff, however there was nothing to sustain it.
There is nothing that the "Labour" Party and did to solve issues.There are many people without homes, and There is nothing that the social Democrats did to cure the issue.



3.I did that on purpose. It's a concept.


4.There will always be people to embrace the concept. I don't support only one Method to the propose society. Elections, Popular revolutions, and coups can all be useful. Though it must depend on situation.


5.the "Libertarian" would have done the samething.They may seek to over throw it, that is what all ideologies that advocate revoltion do.

6. You assume the conditions of my system. Protectionism is Important in trying to be a self-Nation. If a country depends on imports to much, then the county would be too dependent. Allowing to much dependence on foreign workers, would lead for exploitation and economic suffering for all the workers.

7.Hedonism is the concept of gaining as much pleasure as possible and minimalizing pain as possible.
The concern is that "Pleasure" is vague. If we allow individuals to do pleasure regardless of consequence, then there will be contradiction between desires. This desire will lead to harm.


8. Political issue's are economic and Social issue's. I wouldn't distinguish it.


9.I don't plan to remove everyone that I disagree with. It would be best if I unify with those that I mostly agree with. Also such a movement would require popular support, so it would only succeed with popular support.


10.There would be no reason for me to Reject Religion, and their is no desire for me to allow clergy to rule every one. Honestly I pick such a opinion to counter State Atheism.

11.Even being Anti-Zionist, I would not consider a Jew a threat. They should still practice their religion and culture. Strasserism is focus on the Jew as a enemy, and I wouldn't. There is also no point for me to adopt a German ideology like this. However I believe in racial equality, and I reject the notion of a superior Race.

1) As an Authoritarian Socialist you know this how? On assumed historical evidence of select cases? Even then you would be hard pressed to find examples where the Libertarians were worse that any Authoritarian especially in the role of shooting and murdering people. Furthermore, your argument seems centered on this ideal of anarchy and ignores various strands of Libertarian Socialism that are centered around Democratic systems. Also, are suggesting the only solution to resistance is shooting? A capitalist who opposes land redistribution does not need to be shot in response, the land can be taken and he can make do without needing to follow with murder. Finally, CNT-FAI was by no means the worst organisation in Spain, and many of the seniors complained about extra-judicial killings by the FAI [Many of whom were later murdered by Communists and Authoritarian Socialists funnily enough]. CNT itself was not an organisation that expressed a sole desire of the elimination by violent means of their opposition until many of the true Syndicalists and Socialists were expelled to be replaced by "Anarcho" Communists who ultimately had more in common with the Pro-Stalin factions of the Republic.

2) "You say socialist states keep failing, but you praise Democratic 'Socialist.'" You have presented nothing here... You have merely stated my point and moved on with nothing added? I was confused as to why that was all. I do believe you have read the wrong argument because in no way did I claim Social Democracy had "Solved" the issues facing working people I merely pointed that successful Leftist movements require engagement with the people they represent and pointed out that such engagement has led to more people driven ideas and greater success for movements. Furthermore, you cite Labour and yet ignore that they are not in power and that a Leftist Labour haven't been in charge since James Callaghan in the 70s and so your argument is essentially that they have failed to do something whilst they have no power? In a similar vein, what have the Authoritarians done for Britain? There is still homelessness? That is the major flaw of the argument, you have ignored that Labour run areas often do better on workers issues than the country as a whole and yet you ignore this.

3) You say it is a concept yet provide no explanation. A concept how? That what you do always justifies what happens? So if you shoot people and are overthrown that is reasonable? Because that seems on a whole to counter a running plan in your ideal.

4) Once more I did not refer to the gaining of power so I do believe you are reading the wrong argument, in fact, I did not refer to any specifics and was specifically referring to your policy of "Consolidating Power" and providing "Stability and Order" both of which, given the running theme of Authoritarianism would elude to some form of "Red Terror" so to speak or equally horrible events all of which were justified under the argument to counter, as you do call them, "Counter-Revolutionaries" which in this case refer to be sane enough to fight against a bat-shit insane oppressive regime you refer to as an Ideal.

5) Libertarians generally spend far less time shooting people and are less inclined to do so. [CNT-FAI under the control of FAI is not an example of a Libertarian Organisation, classic CNT and the succeeding Syndicalist Party would be] This often results in us being gunned down by Authoritarians who have far less moral scruples and political ideas that prevent them murdering innocent men, women and children that merely disagree.

6) I assume your conditions because unless you want your state on the magic planet Pluto, you are going to have to accept a globalised and dependent world. Furthermore, you assume conditions of Humanity, claiming that dependencies lead irrevocably to exploitation when quite simply that is bullshit. Dependencies on trade do not have to result in exploitation however the nature of Authoritarian Leftist and Capitalist societies results in inevitable exploitation as Socialism without liberty is but simple oppression in your name.

7) You ignored my point on this so mayhap go again? I asked what you meant by Hedonism so you presented a vague definition, pointed it out as vague, and left it at that, I care not what you intend with hedonism, but what you mean and define with hedonism.

8) And that is why your Ideal would always fail, a simple lack of understanding that Politics can not simply solve or be shoehorned into everything as seen quite openly with the "War on Drugs of the US" which has seen horrific increases in drug use whilst rehabilitation oriented programs such as in Portugal have met wide success. You have completely missed the key point that Social and Economic Issues are not always Political ones.

9) Now you claim and push for popular support with an ideal that all can see would never achieve a majority in 99% of cases as evidenced the world over. Furthermore, your ideal is so narrow and rooted in Authoritarianism you would invariably be incapable of achieving much support within the same economic beliefs. And finally, you critcise Socialism and Communism for a Utopian Ideal and yet present one right here with somehow a deluded belief in majoritarian popular support which if you do not mean and you simply think you require no majority then I point that you do not prepare for peaceful, only violent overthrows countering your point that you do not care about accession of power but that it works.

10) You use it as a option to counter State Atheism and claim it for popular unity but fail to answer how you think your secularism will unite where other examples often divide between those who agree and don't.

11) Valid Point and I concede that to simply label it a Strasserism is unfair. However, your Ideal is certainly very much Strasserism in all but racial policy which is not necessarily unique from parties which took up Strasserism in name.

It’s Juche. His ideology is literally just Juche

[Byzconia]

But what about...A Populist Center?

Centrist extremists.
Extreme centrists.

Radical centrism is a real thing.

[Byzconia]

Radical centrism is a real thing.

It's not populit enough tbh.

So make it more populist. If we're being honest, "radical centrism" is basically just, "Whatever happens to be popular and will get me elected."

[United Muscovite Nations]

The USSR failed because its ideology was merely a development of bourgeois ideology. Its only innovation to industrialism was a different distribution of industrial goods, but the Soviet Union did not solve the problems of industrial society, because industrialism's problems can't be solved by doubling down on industrialism. We will soon find out that the industrial revolution is not a savior but a condemner.

[Communal concils]

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

Social democrats never claimed to be socialist.

Ofcourse they had .Social Democrats across the world call Nordic Nations Socialist,Many Social Democrats called themselves Socialist, and the Labour Party of Britain called themselves socialist.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

It's not populit enough tbh.

Populit?

[Communal concils]

1) As an Authoritarian Socialist you know this how? On assumed historical evidence of select cases? Even then you would be hard pressed to find examples where the Libertarians were worse that any Authoritarian especially in the role of shooting and murdering people. Furthermore, your argument seems centered on this ideal of anarchy and ignores various strands of Libertarian Socialism that are centered around Democratic systems. Also, are suggesting the only solution to resistance is shooting? A capitalist who opposes land redistribution does not need to be shot in response, the land can be taken and he can make do without needing to follow with murder. Finally, CNT-FAI was by no means the worst organisation in Spain, and many of the seniors complained about extra-judicial killings by the FAI [Many of whom were later murdered by Communists and Authoritarian Socialists funnily enough]. CNT itself was not an organisation that expressed a sole desire of the elimination by violent means of their opposition until many of the true Syndicalists and Socialists were expelled to be replaced by "Anarcho" Communists who ultimately had more in common with the Pro-Stalin factions of the Republic.

2) "You say socialist states keep failing, but you praise Democratic 'Socialist.'" You have presented nothing here... You have merely stated my point and moved on with nothing added? I was confused as to why that was all. I do believe you have read the wrong argument because in no way did I claim Social Democracy had "Solved" the issues facing working people I merely pointed that successful Leftist movements require engagement with the people they represent and pointed out that such engagement has led to more people driven ideas and greater success for movements. Furthermore, you cite Labour and yet ignore that they are not in power and that a Leftist Labour haven't been in charge since James Callaghan in the 70s and so your argument is essentially that they have failed to do something whilst they have no power? In a similar vein, what have the Authoritarians done for Britain? There is still homelessness? That is the major flaw of the argument, you have ignored that Labour run areas often do better on workers issues than the country as a whole and yet you ignore this.

3) You say it is a concept yet provide no explanation. A concept how? That what you do always justifies what happens? So if you shoot people and are overthrown that is reasonable? Because that seems on a whole to counter a running plan in your ideal.

4) Once more I did not refer to the gaining of power so I do believe you are reading the wrong argument, in fact, I did not refer to any specifics and was specifically referring to your policy of "Consolidating Power" and providing "Stability and Order" both of which, given the running theme of Authoritarianism would elude to some form of "Red Terror" so to speak or equally horrible events all of which were justified under the argument to counter, as you do call them, "Counter-Revolutionaries" which in this case refer to be sane enough to fight against a bat-shit insane oppressive regime you refer to as an Ideal.

5) Libertarians generally spend far less time shooting people and are less inclined to do so. [CNT-FAI under the control of FAI is not an example of a Libertarian Organisation, classic CNT and the succeeding Syndicalist Party would be] This often results in us being gunned down by Authoritarians who have far less moral scruples and political ideas that prevent them murdering innocent men, women and children that merely disagree.

6) I assume your conditions because unless you want your state on the magic planet Pluto, you are going to have to accept a globalised and dependent world. Furthermore, you assume conditions of Humanity, claiming that dependencies lead irrevocably to exploitation when quite simply that is bullshit. Dependencies on trade do not have to result in exploitation however the nature of Authoritarian Leftist and Capitalist societies results in inevitable exploitation as Socialism without liberty is but simple oppression in your name.

7) You ignored my point on this so mayhap go again? I asked what you meant by Hedonism so you presented a vague definition, pointed it out as vague, and left it at that, I care not what you intend with hedonism, but what you mean and define with hedonism.

8) And that is why your Ideal would always fail, a simple lack of understanding that Politics can not simply solve or be shoehorned into everything as seen quite openly with the "War on Drugs of the US" which has seen horrific increases in drug use whilst rehabilitation oriented programs such as in Portugal have met wide success. You have completely missed the key point that Social and Economic Issues are not always Political ones.

9) Now you claim and push for popular support with an ideal that all can see would never achieve a majority in 99% of cases as evidenced the world over. Furthermore, your ideal is so narrow and rooted in Authoritarianism you would invariably be incapable of achieving much support within the same economic beliefs. And finally, you critcise Socialism and Communism for a Utopian Ideal and yet present one right here with somehow a deluded belief in majoritarian popular support which if you do not mean and you simply think you require no majority then I point that you do not prepare for peaceful, only violent overthrows countering your point that you do not care about accession of power but that it works.

10) You use it as a option to counter State Atheism and claim it for popular unity but fail to answer how you think your secularism will unite where other examples often divide between those who agree and don't.

11) Valid Point and I concede that to simply label it a Strasserism is unfair. However, your Ideal is certainly very much Strasserism in all but racial policy which is not necessarily unique from parties which took up Strasserism in name.

It’s Juche. His ideology is literally just Juche

I'm not a supporter of Juche.I don't think that the Military first policy(Songun) is the best thing for North Korea, and I seen no proof of mass industrialization .I also am critical of the concept of leader worship, my concept of an ideology is less ritualistic than North Korea. Finally, I think creating a dynasty is counter-productive. A Leader would better of be appointed or elected .

[Communal concils]

The USSR failed because its ideology was merely a development of bourgeois ideology. Its only innovation to industrialism was a different distribution of industrial goods, but the Soviet Union did not solve the problems of industrial society, because industrialism's problems can't be solved by doubling down on industrialism. We will soon find out that the industrial revolution is not a savior but a condemner.

I think that industrialization is an important thing that Socialist countries should embrace. If socialism is about the worker, then it ought to be focus on mass production.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The USSR failed because its ideology was merely a development of bourgeois ideology. Its only innovation to industrialism was a different distribution of industrial goods, but the Soviet Union did not solve the problems of industrial society, because industrialism's problems can't be solved by doubling down on industrialism. We will soon find out that the industrial revolution is not a savior but a condemner.

I think that industrialization is an important thing that Socialist countries should embrace. If socialism is about the worker, then it ought to be focus on mass production.

Mass production isn't sustainable. We're rapidly depleting the planet's resources.

[Communal concils]

I think that industrialization is an important thing that Socialist countries should embrace. If socialism is about the worker, then it ought to be focus on mass production.

Mass production isn't sustainable. We're rapidly depleting the planet's resources.

We can adapt, and try to reach higher. Humanity has proven to survive many disasters of nature.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Mass production isn't sustainable. We're rapidly depleting the planet's resources.

We can adapt, and try to reach higher. Humanity has proven to survive many disasters of nature.

That doesn't mean our civilization will survive it. Our society right now is dependent on many resources which are being rapidly depleted.

[Communal concils]

We can adapt, and try to reach higher. Humanity has proven to survive many disasters of nature.

That doesn't mean our civilization will survive it. Our society right now is dependent on many resources which are being rapidly depleted.

we can try to fine newer resources. Innovation is the virtue that will preserve civilization.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That doesn't mean our civilization will survive it. Our society right now is dependent on many resources which are being rapidly depleted.

we can try to fine newer resources. Innovation is the virtue that will preserve civilization.

We shouldn't proceed mindlessly in consumption in the trust that we'll just so happen to find something that will save us. We can hope for the best, but we should prepare for the worst.

[Communal concils]

we can try to fine newer resources. Innovation is the virtue that will preserve civilization.

We shouldn't proceed mindlessly in consumption in the trust that we'll just so happen to find something that will save us. We can hope for the best, but we should prepare for the worst.

We should prepare for the worst, and we shouldn't mindlessly consume.However, this does not make me reject my concept of Athrocentricism.

[Athonuna]

We shouldn't proceed mindlessly in consumption in the trust that we'll just so happen to find something that will save us. We can hope for the best, but we should prepare for the worst.

We should prepare for the worst, and we shouldn't mindlessly consume.However, this does not make me reject my concept of Athrocentricism.

But having a socialist/communist country would only increase the difficulty of adhering to this system, considering that if you are to follow your own ideological tenets, then you would need to provide resources to every citizen in the name of 'equality'.