Advertisement
by Akaidia » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:00 pm
by Soviet Tankistan » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:09 pm
Akaidia wrote:OOC, I'm an actual Socialist.
I believe in the redistribution of wealth, cooperative farming, the teachings of marx in general, the abolition of a wealth based class system, the abolition of capital and the actual excecution of fascists, royal and capitalists (ie billionaires)
I do however support:
-Some of the Pro-Life movement - I would personally have the restriction set to 12 weeks gestation under ordinary circumstances and upto 20 weeks for rape/incest.
-Controlled immigration and borders - I fully support Trump's wall, I also support the fact that the DDR built the berlin wall (the DDR is my idea of a utopia tbh). I think borders are a necessary evil that have to be regulated in order for us to have distinct and beautiful cultures.
-Socialist Militarism - I believe that under a socialist system the army would be able to be used for many different things, and it would, for me, be considered as one of the pillars of a socialist system.
-Rejecting the Non-medical use of drugs- Cannabis (ganja) is neither here nor there since it is effectively harmless, it would effect productivity though which is a negative but the productivity of the state and the freedom of the people is a fine balancing act. However, pretty much any other drug, including alcohol, I'm completely in favour of banning.
-Distinction between sexes- I'm a firm believer that you are either male or female. I DO support trans rights, but if you have a penis you are the big M and if you have a vagina you are the big F. Irrelevent of how you got those organs.
-Hierarchy- Hierarchichal systems are a fact of life, get over it.
I'm probably what the left would describe as a Tankie, I support stalinism and the DPRK and I am not ashamed about it.
However, I have noticed that my views are essentialyl blasphemous in the Socialist community.
But in short to answer your question, yes, you CAN be socialist and be Socially Conservative.
by Pasong Tirad » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:14 pm
by Nakena » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:16 pm
Pasong Tirad wrote:Not without generally contradicting much of what the left stands for. Social conservatism is, without being too simplistic, rooted in some social hierarchies, usually with God or a King or some kind of boss at the top of that pyramid, whilst socialism and left-wing thought is more closely related to social liberalism in its egalitarian beliefs.
But then again people are contradictory human beings so I suppose it's not impossible.
by Communal concils » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:17 pm
Soviet Tankistan wrote:Communal concils wrote:
Has anybody found it weird that people said that you can't be a socialist if you:
1.are Pro-Life
2.Support controlled immigration and borders
3.reject prostitution
4.rejects the ideals of "Free" love or libertine ideals
5.Support Militarism
6.reject Non-medical use of drugs
7.value Police enforcement
8.believe in Distinctions between sexes
9.reject environmentalism
10.or some kind of Hierarchy
Now let's look at definitions of Leftism:
1. the portion of the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism and popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life. - Encyclopedia Britannica
2.supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy. It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished (by advocating for social justice).
1. Pro life is a nonsense name. I believe the number of abortions should be adjusted based of the country's population.
Not 'moral' reasons.
2. Security is irrelevant to xenophobia. Letting others in must happen while anti-crime measures must be strong regardless. People seeking trouble will always get by, it is a question of whether you let the people who deserve it in.
3. Prostitution is a health hazard if unregulated. However, I believe current laws in countries like the United States do a pretty good job handling it.
4. Again, mostly a problem of STDs and STIs. Marriage equality should exist but free love isn't realistic for a modernized country.
5. Militarism is needed to a certain extent but every country must be careful if doesn't escalate war too far or hope for disaster.
6. Agree, but rehabilitation is the best way.
7. Law enforcement is a certainty, but the values have been corrupted by capitalism. I have no doubt that the police would retain similar problems under your ideas.
8. Women should have equal rights as men. There should be no legal difference.
9. Climate change is real and should be addressed. However, unsustainable economic policies should not be enacted.
10. I am against capitalism because of unjust and inefficient hierarchy. Having a straightforward and effective leadership is one thing, tyranny and guaranteed rule is another.
You aren't very left wing, more like a totalitarian right winger who believe they are socialist.
by Kustonia » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:17 pm
Communal concils wrote:Kustonia wrote:A socialist can be socially conservative, especially if that particular socialist supports class collaboration instead of class warfare. Socialism is a broad term with many different forms and theories. I disagree with Lenin that socialism leads to communism, because there is no one particular definition or form of socialism. Traditionalists and feudalists could be considered socialist in a way, but they would certainly be opposed to Marxian socialism and dialectical materialism.
I see no point in really having a Bourgeoisie collaborate with The Proletariat. They are lazy, and they tend to use wealth for decadence. Class Warfare can simply be use to create a new Hierarchy, and a new Proletariat that isn't base on poverty.
by Communal concils » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:18 pm
Costa Fierro wrote:The whole labour movement in many Western countries is rooted in these kinds of people. New Zealand's principal left wing party, Labour, was founded by coal miners in the West Coast, one of the least socially liberal places in the country.
by Pasong Tirad » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:22 pm
Nakena wrote:Pasong Tirad wrote:Not without generally contradicting much of what the left stands for. Social conservatism is, without being too simplistic, rooted in some social hierarchies, usually with God or a King or some kind of boss at the top of that pyramid, whilst socialism and left-wing thought is more closely related to social liberalism in its egalitarian beliefs.
But then again people are contradictory human beings so I suppose it's not impossible.
Most of Marxist-Leninist Countries of the past would like to have a word with you...
Bourgeoisie decadence and such stuff.
by Cruciland » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:22 pm
Aclion wrote:Yeah, it's called fascism.
Socialdemokraterne wrote:If the absence of secularism wasn't enough to scare our people, the rate of which the doomsday button is pressed by them sure settled the matter.
Prussia-Steinbach wrote:Cruciland, I just want to say, your nation is frightening.
The Inevitable Syndicate wrote:My advice to you, dear Gordano-Lysandus, is to run. Or hide. Maybe not hiding, because the Crucilandians will find you, and by their god, you will be assimilated.
by Hatterleigh » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:23 pm
National News Network: William Botrum entering last days in office - President-elect Rood preparing or term
Overview of Hatterleigh | William Botrum, Hatterleigh's President | Hatterlese Embassy Program | I don't use NS stats.by Communal concils » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:23 pm
Kustonia wrote:Communal concils wrote:
I see no point in really having a Bourgeoisie collaborate with The Proletariat. They are lazy, and they tend to use wealth for decadence. Class Warfare can simply be use to create a new Hierarchy, and a new Proletariat that isn't base on poverty.
The aristocracy is not to be confused with the bourgeoisie. Feudalism had to do with the cooperation of the peasant classes and the aristocracy, with natural resources being provided to peasants in exchange for military service. The bourgeoisie came about from the rise of industrialization, and opposed both the aristocracy and the working classes. There was no free market or private property in the feudalist system.
by Hatterleigh » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:24 pm
National News Network: William Botrum entering last days in office - President-elect Rood preparing or term
Overview of Hatterleigh | William Botrum, Hatterleigh's President | Hatterlese Embassy Program | I don't use NS stats.by Jack Thomas Lang » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:24 pm
Cruciland wrote:I believe the term you're looking for is "national socialism." It's easy to confuse the two, understandably, but fascist economics are less like socialism and more like dirigisme, or state capitalism.
by Hatterleigh » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:26 pm
National News Network: William Botrum entering last days in office - President-elect Rood preparing or term
Overview of Hatterleigh | William Botrum, Hatterleigh's President | Hatterlese Embassy Program | I don't use NS stats.by Communal concils » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:27 pm
Akaidia wrote:OOC, I'm an actual Socialist.
I believe in the redistribution of wealth, cooperative farming, the teachings of marx in general, the abolition of a wealth based class system, the abolition of capital and the actual excecution of fascists, royal and capitalists (ie billionaires)
I do however support:
-Some of the Pro-Life movement - I would personally have the restriction set to 12 weeks gestation under ordinary circumstances and upto 20 weeks for rape/incest.
-Controlled immigration and borders - I fully support Trump's wall, I also support the fact that the DDR built the berlin wall (the DDR is my idea of a utopia tbh). I think borders are a necessary evil that have to be regulated in order for us to have distinct and beautiful cultures.
-Socialist Militarism - I believe that under a socialist system the army would be able to be used for many different things, and it would, for me, be considered as one of the pillars of a socialist system.
-Rejecting the Non-medical use of drugs- Cannabis (ganja) is neither here nor there since it is effectively harmless, it would effect productivity though which is a negative but the productivity of the state and the freedom of the people is a fine balancing act. However, pretty much any other drug, including alcohol, I'm completely in favour of banning.
-Distinction between sexes- I'm a firm believer that you are either male or female. I DO support trans rights, but if you have a penis you are the big M and if you have a vagina you are the big F. Irrelevent of how you got those organs.
-Hierarchy- Hierarchichal systems are a fact of life, get over it.
I'm probably what the left would describe as a Tankie, I support stalinism and the DPRK and I am not ashamed about it.
However, I have noticed that my views are essentialyl blasphemous in the Socialist community.
But in short to answer your question, yes, you CAN be socialist and be Socially Conservative.
by Auzkhia » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:28 pm
by Nakena » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:28 pm
Hatterleigh wrote:First of all, Militarism & Police aren't inherently right wing. Second of all, duh. Distributism, Communitarianism, Strasserism, Primitive Socialism, and "Nazbol" are all arguably right wing and many, many socialist ideologies are purely economic. As far as the heirarchy thing goes idk. While most forms of hierarchy are not supported by the defining features of socialism that does not mean that social classes have to cease to exist. "Seperate but equal" is common in right-wing socialist groups.
by Communal concils » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:29 pm
Hatterleigh wrote:First of all, Militarism & Police aren't inherently right wing. Second of all, duh. Distributism, Communitarianism, Strasserism, Primitive Socialism, and "Nazbol" are all arguably right wing and many, many socialist ideologies are purely economic. As far as the heirarchy thing goes idk. While most forms of hierarchy are not supported by the defining features of socialism that does not mean that social classes have to cease to exist. "Seperate but equal" is common in right-wing socialist groups.
by Hatterleigh » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:30 pm
Nakena wrote:Hatterleigh wrote:First of all, Militarism & Police aren't inherently right wing. Second of all, duh. Distributism, Communitarianism, Strasserism, Primitive Socialism, and "Nazbol" are all arguably right wing and many, many socialist ideologies are purely economic. As far as the heirarchy thing goes idk. While most forms of hierarchy are not supported by the defining features of socialism that does not mean that social classes have to cease to exist. "Seperate but equal" is common in right-wing socialist groups.
Querfront when?
National News Network: William Botrum entering last days in office - President-elect Rood preparing or term
Overview of Hatterleigh | William Botrum, Hatterleigh's President | Hatterlese Embassy Program | I don't use NS stats.by Thuzbekistan » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:33 pm
by Thuzbekistan » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:33 pm
Communal concils wrote:Hatterleigh wrote:First of all, Militarism & Police aren't inherently right wing. Second of all, duh. Distributism, Communitarianism, Strasserism, Primitive Socialism, and "Nazbol" are all arguably right wing and many, many socialist ideologies are purely economic. As far as the heirarchy thing goes idk. While most forms of hierarchy are not supported by the defining features of socialism that does not mean that social classes have to cease to exist. "Seperate but equal" is common in right-wing socialist groups.
Well, I identify as a Marxist-Leninist. Many of them agree with me.
However, I wanted to address the issues of the suppose Anti-Stalinist "left".
by Lanorth » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:35 pm
by Hatterleigh » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:36 pm
Thuzbekistan wrote:While it's possible, It's not consistent with most leftist theory. If you want a state-controlled economy that is supposedly for the workers while also enforcing your conservatism, then look no further than Stalin or Hitler. National Socialism is essentially "conservative" socialism and Stalin's path was similar.
Libertarian socialists are the best ways to go.
National News Network: William Botrum entering last days in office - President-elect Rood preparing or term
Overview of Hatterleigh | William Botrum, Hatterleigh's President | Hatterlese Embassy Program | I don't use NS stats.by Thuzbekistan » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:38 pm
Hatterleigh wrote:Thuzbekistan wrote:While it's possible, It's not consistent with most leftist theory. If you want a state-controlled economy that is supposedly for the workers while also enforcing your conservatism, then look no further than Stalin or Hitler. National Socialism is essentially "conservative" socialism and Stalin's path was similar.
Libertarian socialists are the best ways to go.
Hitler wasn't a socialist or a leftist, and Stalin was just authoritarian, he wasn't especially traditionalist or conservative.
by Communal concils » Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:39 pm
Auzkhia wrote:You'd have justify those hierarchies along within a socialist framework, we would both agree that private economic hierarchies are unjustified, but why would certain political, patriarchal, heteronormative, sexual, racial, and/or ethnic hierarchies be justified? And quite often these systems are connected to each other, as one hierarchy and benefit from the others.
As an anarchist and socialist, I believe all unjust hierarchies should be abolished, especially at the root with the logic of domination, in which people believe there must be a system of dominant group over subjugate groups, and that is no way to live, that will always put society at tension.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cyptopir, Greater Cesnica, Kastopoli Salegliari, Keltionialang, Kostane, Shrillland
Advertisement