NationStates

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.

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.

Fuck the DPRK and the DDR never should have been prolonged. It should have been dissolved after sufficient denazification, not turned into a hell fueled by the rotting Soviet Union. Nationalism is not a necessary evil. Nationalism always ends up as a nice sounding word for arrogance and feeling of ethnic, racial, or national superiority. Alcohol shouldn't be banned it we want substance abuse to stop while marijuana should be.

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.

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.

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.

1. I support abortion in cases of incest, rape, birth defects and Miscarriages. As for a Healthy fetus formed from consent, It shouldn't be killed. However, I think that we simply need to remove reasons for abortion. With social Programs like Childcare and Maternity Leave, then we have improvement. However, law enforcement and birth control are also needed.

2. I think that refugees should be accepted. however, we should have policies of examining everyone that comes in. I hate xenophobia, and I only support borders for the ideal of preventing harmful people and contraband.

3. I want to remove the need for commodification of a individuals life. It's just that I don't think prostitution should exist in a society that wants to remove Market influence as much as possible. I think free sex should be encourage.

4. You are right about sexually transmitted diseases. However, I think relationships are meant for reproduction. in fact, I think that the reason sex exist is for that sole reason. Still, I believe that Men and Women should be treated the same in potential and freedoms.

5. I agree

6. I think Drug dealers should be heavily punished. Victims need to be reintegrated. The justification of Drug use is usually about mental illness and poverty.

7. I want to restructure and reform the police. Capitalism has corrupted them, as they are pawns for corporate power. Just like the state, the Police is a toll that can be use by and against use.

8. The Distinctions I believe in are only base on matters of gender identity and behaviors. generally, Men and Women can do things aside from matters of sexuality.

9. I know Climate change is real. I generally think that Human worth should be place over other Organisms. However, the environment should be sustained for the sake of continue use for Humans.

10. I think that a planned Economy should replace Capitalism. Similar to the Soviet Model. Honestly, I support such things for the use of massive production and massive economic advancement.

I will say that I'm not right wing. I want to remove distinctions of people in all matters . I want a unified collective, in which culture, race and religion do not divide people.

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.

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. Within this context, feudalism can be considered a form of non-Marxian socialism.

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.

agree.

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.

Like I said. People are by nature contradictory beings. It wouldn't be unheard of, especially since all 5 self-described socialist/communist countries of the world still don't subscribe to most socially liberal beliefs such as recognition of same-sex marriages and the like.

Aclion wrote:Yeah, it's called fascism.

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.

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.

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.

You are right that Private property and Free markets didn't exist in Feudalism. However, I am not interested in Neo-Feudalism. I would rather a planned economy,one in which values Nationalization and complete state control on production and other forces. Even for all it's flaws, such a Economy has lead to massive production. The Planned Economy has yet to be practiced in a already industrialize and developed nation. All the countries that done it started as shit wholes, and everything had to be made from the beginning. However, We have not done it in an already developed nation.

Cruciland wrote:

Aclion wrote:Yeah, it's called fascism.

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.

There's no such thing as a single system of fascist economics.

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.

National Socialism was just as capitalist as any other fascist state, if not more so. German businessmen and corporations benefited greatly from Hitler.

I personally identify as a guild socialist and I don't even like market economies, yet I am overwhelmingly tribalistic and traditionalistic. To a spiritual extent, in fact.

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.

Yes, alike minded individual.

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.

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?

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".

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?

umm, what front??

Edit: Yes. Yes that is good. Looked it up on wikipedia. Good.

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.

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".

Stalinists ruined socialism for the world with their nationalism and paranoia

I looked it up online and I found a Wikipedia article called Tory Socialism and in my home country of the United Kingdom, a Tory, or The Tory Party, is the Conservative Party. This is what the article says.

Tory socialism was a term used by historians, particularly of the early Fabian Society, to describe the governing philosophy of the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. The term is also used by many free market advocates to describe certain strains of conservatism that are more reformist-minded and believe in a more activist government. For instance, the domestic policies of Richard Nixon were also called by many libertarians to be "Tory socialist", which they believed had much in common with the philosophy of "big government conservatism" espoused by many neo-conservatives. It was in keeping with this that David Gelernter wrote a long essay in The Weekly Standard extolling Disraeli as the founder of modern conservatism.The phrase has also been used by Vernon Bogdanor to describe the thinking of Ferdinand Mount and was used by Arnold Toynbee to describe the beliefs of Joseph Rayner Stephens and Richard Oastler. The phrase was also used to describe both Stanley Baldwin and Harold Macmillan in the 1930s and by Tony Judge in his biographical study of Robert Blatchford and in a wider study of Tory Socialism between 1870-1940.

I do not know if this is of any use, but I placed it here anyway. I am rather confused on this specific topic.

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.

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.

Hitler's policies ended up mirroring Stalin in a lot of ways. It's just he shed the pretense of doing it for the worker and instead did it for the glory of the state and nation.

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.

1. I reject racial politics, I reject sexism and I reject ethnic Hierarchies. In fact, I want to not just abolish the things, but also the identities that are associated with them. I think new values and identities should replace them. As for Hetronormative and sexual hierarchies,I simply think they are not the most important issues. The Miners, Farmers, factory workers and the unemployed are the most important issues. I also think that the exploitation of the second and third world are as important. I care about the issues that affect the world in the long run. I hate how Libertarian Socialist base oppression on college students and "Intellectual" Clubs. I find this harmful, and it has draw the more useful demographics to the Far-Right. The Left needs to be Populistic.

2. I just find anarchism as a stupid ideology, that has a few revolts to it's name. The world is complex, and anarchism rejects this with idealism.