NationStates

The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom comes to mind

Minachia wrote:Isn't that what Nazbols and Mussolini-type Fascists are? Or, for that matter, every regime that ever called itself Communist?

I would not call hard-line communists like Stalinists and Maoists socially conservative because of their hostility to religion and to traditional customs and social institutions like monarchy. I would actually call that authoritarian social progressivism.

Highever wrote:

Communal concils wrote:

Yes, you are correct. However, I believe that new rights should be created to replace them, and they should be morphed into different forms

And how exactly are you going to replace rights after taking away pretty much every reasonable right under the sun?

I honestly don't think cc has any new rights to replace the ones that they will take away. I think it is just a lie to lull people into a false sense of security that something better is on the way, when in actual fact cc has no intention of ever replacing the rights that they intend to take away.

Bienenhalde wrote:

Minachia wrote:Isn't that what Nazbols and Mussolini-type Fascists are? Or, for that matter, every regime that ever called itself Communist?

I would not call hard-line communists like Stalinists and Maoists socially conservative because of their hostility to religion and to traditional customs and social institutions like monarchy. I would actually call that authoritarian social progressivism.

Well, I was kind of basing that off of Concil's list of socially conservative ideals deemed incompatible with socialism.

US-SSR wrote:Can you be a State Socialist a la Stalin, a traditional labor union adherent or leader, or a Social Democrat and be a "social conservative?" Sure.

Can you believe workers should control the means of production; that the proper program of socialism is not to reform capitalism but to replace it; and that society should be organized for the benefit of those who produce its wealth rather than for the benefit of their exploiters, and also believe:

- people should be prevented from living, loving and pursuing their own happiness as they see fit;

- people should be prevented from moving wherever they choose to move in the world;

- society should be forced to spend its scarce resources on armies and police forces, most of which are used to repress dissent and/or extract resources from others;

- robber barons should be permitted to despoil the planet in fulfillment of their personal greed?

No. No, you can't.

1. assuming that they are actually think correctly

2. Diseases, contraband, human trafficking.

3. I find now problem in suppressing Nazis and racial supremacist of all flavors. I also think that rape should be punished by death. also, police exist to keep order. The Military exist to protect territory.

4. A human life is worth more than a lower intelligent and stupid dog

Nice ideals from a Libertarian. I give it -100/ 10.

Of course they can be. Socialism is more of an economic ideal, as opposed to a social one like the name suggests. People will often have two (potentially differing) types of "political beliefs". One is a social and the other is economic. Someone can be a fiscal conservative but a social progressive, and vice versa, although its rare as the two ideas, while separate, are often intertwined.

Minachia wrote:

Bienenhalde wrote:I would not call hard-line communists like Stalinists and Maoists socially conservative because of their hostility to religion and to traditional customs and social institutions like monarchy. I would actually call that authoritarian social progressivism.

Well, I was kind of basing that off of Concil's list of socially conservative ideals deemed incompatible with socialism.

How is it a contradiction? Just wondering.

If they want to eliminate economic hierarchies and the bigotry that holds them up but preserve social hierarchies and the bigotry that holds them up? Yeah, they can be ideologically inconsistent.

Communal concils wrote:
4. A human life is worth more than a lower intelligent and stupid dog

Nice ideals from a Libertarian. I give it -100/ 10.

So now you literally hate puppies. Awesome.

Communal concils wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Patently untrue. You clearly have no idea what anarchism is.

I know what Anarchism is , I was once one.

You clearly don't understand what anarchism is, as if you did you wouldn't mistakenly assume that anarchists would allow rape etc.

The New California Republic wrote:

Highever wrote:And how exactly are you going to replace rights after taking away pretty much every reasonable right under the sun?

I honestly don't think cc has any new rights to replace the ones that they will take away. I think it is just a lie to lull people into a false sense of security that something better is on the way, when in actual fact cc has no intention of ever replacing the rights that they intend to take away.

I don't expect Libertarian Socialist to actually protect their society. They will lead people into a false sense of security, and the fall of the old system would lead to smaller states rather than no state.So, they have no intentions of preserving it.

Communal concils wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:I honestly don't think cc has any new rights to replace the ones that they will take away. I think it is just a lie to lull people into a false sense of security that something better is on the way, when in actual fact cc has no intention of ever replacing the rights that they intend to take away.

I don't expect Libertarian Socialist to actually protect their society. They will lead people into a false sense of security, and the fall of the old system would lead to smaller states rather than no state.So, they have no intentions of preserving it.

How does this answer the question of what new rights you will establish to replace the elimination if pretty much all existing ones? Also what are you even saying with this drivel?

Communal concils wrote:A human life is worth more than a lower intelligent and stupid dog.

A strangely hateful statement against dogs.

Communal concils wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:I honestly don't think cc has any new rights to replace the ones that they will take away. I think it is just a lie to lull people into a false sense of security that something better is on the way, when in actual fact cc has no intention of ever replacing the rights that they intend to take away.

I don't expect Libertarian Socialist to actually protect their society. They will lead people into a false sense of security, and the fall of the old system would lead to smaller states rather than no state.So, they have no intentions of preserving it.

Word salad. Makes no sense whatsoever.

The New California Republic wrote:

Communal concils wrote:A human life is worth more than a lower intelligent and stupid dog.

A strangely hateful statement against dogs.

A strange statement regardless of hatred. The syntax is totally broken. "A lower intelligent and stupid dog". Come on.

Wallenburg wrote:If they want to eliminate economic hierarchies and the bigotry that holds them up but preserve social hierarchies and the bigotry that holds them up? Yeah, they can be ideologically inconsistent.

They don't contradict. I support Bigotry against those I consider Reactionary, and i support a social hierarchy to allow for mass production and massive industries for a society. I want a planned economy, and eventually I seek to replace current and reactionary views that are new. New, but appeal to the reactionary, in hopes of converting them, but also to find an alternative to liberalism.

Communal concils wrote:

Minachia wrote:Well, I was kind of basing that off of Concil's list of socially conservative ideals deemed incompatible with socialism.

How is it a contradiction? Just wondering.

Well, your list didn't mention religion and general traditionalism, which is Bienenhalde's reason for saying that Stalinists and Maoists were not socially conservative.
I said that "every regime that ever called itself Communist" was socially conservative based on the paradigm of your list of beliefs that liberal socialists say are incompatible with socialism since all of them were anti-gay, at least indifferent to the environment, militaristic, etc.
Apologies for the confusion.

Communal concils wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:If they want to eliminate economic hierarchies and the bigotry that holds them up but preserve social hierarchies and the bigotry that holds them up? Yeah, they can be ideologically inconsistent.

They don't contradict. I support Bigotry against those I consider Reactionary, and i support a social hierarchy to allow for mass production and massive industries for a society. I want a planned economy, and eventually I seek to replace current and reactionary views that are new. New, but appeal to the reactionary, in hopes of converting them, but also to find an alternative to liberalism.

So, wait, you denounce liberalism for being contradictory yet just now state that you want to support SOME kinds of bigotry and hate while cracking down on others?

Communal concils wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:If they want to eliminate economic hierarchies and the bigotry that holds them up but preserve social hierarchies and the bigotry that holds them up? Yeah, they can be ideologically inconsistent.

They don't contradict. I support Bigotry against those I consider Reactionary, and i support a social hierarchy to allow for mass production and massive industries for a society. I want a planned economy, and eventually I seek to replace current and reactionary views that are new. New, but appeal to the reactionary, in hopes of converting them, but also to find an alternative to liberalism.

Oh the irony is delicious. Banning non-reproductive sex is reactionary.

Yes, they can be, but I see that as pretty fucked up.

Communal concils wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:I honestly don't think cc has any new rights to replace the ones that they will take away. I think it is just a lie to lull people into a false sense of security that something better is on the way, when in actual fact cc has no intention of ever replacing the rights that they intend to take away.

I don't expect Libertarian Socialist to actually protect their society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Protection_Units
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durruti_Column
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Column
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine

As we all know, these groups surrendered their societies to their enemies with laurels and doves the moment push came to shove.

Wallenburg wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:A strangely hateful statement against dogs.

A strange statement regardless of hatred. The syntax is totally broken. "A lower intelligent and stupid dog". Come on.

Fuck knows. I just tried to focus on the part that I could formulate some semblance of a response to.

Philjia wrote:Socially conservative values are often presented as being beneficial to the collective and creating a strong community, in contrast to the emphasis placed on individuals by liberal social values, so one who supports socialism as a means to create a strong community driven or institutionally controlled society may be socially conservative on those grounds.

They're certainly presented that way, but... they're not. Conservative social values are individualist in the sense that they favour, as an example, male individuals at the expense of non-male individuals. They're designed to serve a permanent upper class by giving 'lesser' men privilege so that they'll fight to maintain the status quo. As for... Are we talking liberal or Liberal? Capital 'L' Liberal social values certainly do atomise people, they are Capitalist, Consumerist values, after all, but liberal social values simply accept the innate variation found amongst humans. We're individuals, but we're also members of a society. We're members of a society, but we're also individuals. Any healthy society needs to accommodate both aspects of humanity.

I'll admit that Liberal values are more atomising and more prone to ennui than conservative values, but conservative values induce suffocation and harmful stagnation, instead.

Communal concils wrote:

US-SSR wrote:Can you be a State Socialist a la Stalin, a traditional labor union adherent or leader, or a Social Democrat and be a "social conservative?" Sure.

Can you believe workers should control the means of production; that the proper program of socialism is not to reform capitalism but to replace it; and that society should be organized for the benefit of those who produce its wealth rather than for the benefit of their exploiters, and also believe:

- people should be prevented from living, loving and pursuing their own happiness as they see fit;

- people should be prevented from moving wherever they choose to move in the world;

- society should be forced to spend its scarce resources on armies and police forces, most of which are used to repress dissent and/or extract resources from others;

- robber barons should be permitted to despoil the planet in fulfillment of their personal greed?

No. No, you can't.

1. assuming that they are actually think correctly

And who is to decide what is "correct thinking" if not the individuals doing the thinking, not to mention the living and loving and happiness pursuing?

2. Diseases, contraband, human trafficking.

3. I find now problem in suppressing Nazis and racial supremacist of all flavors. I also think that rape should be punished by death. also, police exist to keep order. The Military exist to protect territory.

4. A human life is worth more than a lower intelligent and stupid dog

Nice ideals from a Libertarian. I give it -100/ 10.

Disease, contraband, human trafficking, oppressive extremisn, rape: all symptoms of capitalism that will wither away under socialism.

Police exist to protect property. Militaries exist to kill people and break their things. Under socialism, little or no need for either.

Human beings don't exist separately -- and certainly not "higher" than -- the natural world or nonhuman animals. Protecting the environment = protecting human lives.

Nice beat and you can dance to it. I give it an 87, Dick.

Highever wrote:

Communal concils wrote:

I don't expect Libertarian Socialist to actually protect their society. They will lead people into a false sense of security, and the fall of the old system would lead to smaller states rather than no state.So, they have no intentions of preserving it.

How does this answer the question of what new rights you will establish to replace the elimination if pretty much all existing ones? Also what are you even saying with this drivel?

Well, I think citizens should have access to food, water and a shelter. However, I believe free healthcare , free education and guarantee of employment should be a thing. You know, welfare stuff. People should also have freedom to be protected, to not be disadvantage by racism or sexism.

This perceived "Drivel" is just a response to NCR. If a state socialist like myself can't offer these liberal values of "Freedom", then I expect a Libertarian Socialist like himself to not actually protect it. If I can't offer it, then he can't retain it.

Communal concils wrote:

Highever wrote:How does this answer the question of what new rights you will establish to replace the elimination if pretty much all existing ones? Also what are you even saying with this drivel?

Well, I think citizens should have access to food, water and a shelter. However, I believe free healthcare , free education and guarantee of employment should be a thing. You know, welfare stuff. People should also have freedom to be protected, to not be disadvantage by racism or sexism.

This perceived "Drivel" is just a response to NCR. If a state socialist like myself can't offer these liberal values of "Freedom", then I expect a Libertarian Socialist like himself to not actually protect it. If I can't offer it, then he can't retain it.

So....how are these somehow not able to be done without tearing away every single right and liberty? And how exactly is it not possible to retain civil liberties unless we go with your bizarre and nonsensical ideals?