Authoritarian Discussion thread

[Torrocca]

It sure is weird how people would happen to dislike the easily-identifiable oppression of a minority group like the LGBTQ+ that's being peddled by an authoritarian masquerading as a communist!

It sure is weird when people get annoyed at how certain people just won't shut up about it long after they made their point.

It's almost like it's a point that wouldn't've been brought up again if CC didn't try to pretend that they're a social moderate or something. Weird how that works.

[Bear Stearns]

Whether or not authoritarianism works really depends on the context.

[Diopolis]

Well, if your goal is to get rid of the bourgeoisie, which group do you think would first come to mind that would be easy to deport?

Of course the bourgeoisie.

The jew isn't a threat or bad thing, but only Zionist.
I rather orthodox Judaism over reform Judaism, The orthodox jew is anti-zionist.
Here's proof : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKplabTRuak

The Jews backed the bourgeoisie, nurtured him, brought about a world where his existence is desirable rather than merely tolerated. The Jews seek to destroy the moral harmony of the working classes to encourage their dependence on the bourgeoisie, and the government's backing causes them to succeed.
Both Jewish communism and Jewish capitalism are bad for the workers.

[Ecradia]

Imagine being a Sorelian
This meme made by DeLeon Gang

Memes aside, nationalism is dumb for the reason Marx cited in the second chapter of the Manifesto. "The proletarian has no nation." The idea of a nation in and of itself is a construct of the bourgeoisie, the borders of a country entirely imaginary for all extents and purposes. To divide the workers by nation and (sometimes) race does nothing but play directly into the hands of the ruling class.

Marx's first mistake is assuming "the workers" are a homogenous group with the same interests, needs and beliefs.

I partially disagree. While it is entirely correct that different material conditions will give rise to different cultural values, the interests of the bourgeoisie are, in all cases, diametrically opposed to those of their concurrent proletarian class. The interests of the bourgeoisie can be summarized down to "to have their workers do the most work for the least amount of pay," where as the interests of the proletariat can be summarized as the opposite: "to get the most pay for the least amount of work." In this, we can see how class struggle is inherent within any class society, though the wording I use here is slightly adjusted to be more relevant to modern capitalism in its terminology.

[Communal concils]

Imagine being a Sorelian
This meme made by DeLeon Gang

Memes aside, nationalism is dumb for the reason Marx cited in the second chapter of the Manifesto. "The proletarian has no nation." The idea of a nation in and of itself is a construct of the bourgeoisie, the borders of a country entirely imaginary for all extents and purposes. To divide the workers by nation and (sometimes) race does nothing but play directly into the hands of the ruling class.

Marx's first mistake is assuming "the workers" are a homogenous group with the same interests, needs and beliefs.

I think that this is why populism is needed. leftist should try to appeal to the masses as much as possible, and try to constantly interact with them.

[Torrocca]

Of course the bourgeoisie.

The jew isn't a threat or bad thing, but only Zionist.
I rather orthodox Judaism over reform Judaism, The orthodox jew is anti-zionist.
Here's proof : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKplabTRuak

The Jews backed the bourgeoisie, nurtured him, brought about a world where his existence is desirable rather than merely tolerated. The Jews seek to destroy the moral harmony of the working classes to encourage their dependence on the bourgeoisie, and the government's backing causes them to succeed.
Both Jewish communism and Jewish capitalism are bad for the workers.

Wowza, that's certainly a yikes amount of anti-Semitism packed into just a couple of sentences.

[The New California Republic]

The Jews backed the bourgeoisie, nurtured him, brought about a world where his existence is desirable rather than merely tolerated. The Jews seek to destroy the moral harmony of the working classes to encourage their dependence on the bourgeoisie, and the government's backing causes them to succeed.
Both Jewish communism and Jewish capitalism are bad for the workers.

Wowza, that's certainly a yikes amount of anti-Semitism packed into just a couple of sentences.

Yeah I was wondering if and when antisemitism would rear its ugly head in this thread.

[Hatterleigh]

Well, if your goal is to get rid of the bourgeoisie, which group do you think would first come to mind that would be easy to deport?

Of course the bourgeoisie.

The jew isn't a threat or bad thing, but only Zionist.
I rather orthodox Judaism over reform Judaism, The orthodox jew is anti-zionist.
Here's proof : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKplabTRuak

That's your proof? A few jews who support palestine? That's not even related to what we were talking about! Israel has nothing to do with this. I didn't even say jews were bad

[Communal concils]

It sure is weird when people get annoyed at how certain people just won't shut up about it long after they made their point.

It's almost like it's a point that wouldn't've been brought up again if CC didn't try to pretend that they're a social moderate or something. Weird how that works.

I share a combination of what can be considered a typical progressive and of a fragment of conservatism. I was a Conservatism, then I became an anarchism, and finally I decided to become a Marxist-Leninist.

[Diopolis]

Marx's first mistake is assuming "the workers" are a homogenous group with the same interests, needs and beliefs.

I partially disagree. While it is entirely correct that different material conditions will give rise to different cultural values, the interests of the bourgeoisie are, in all cases, diametrically opposed to those of their concurrent proletarian class. The interests of the bourgeoisie can be summarized down to "to have their workers do the most work for the least amount of pay," where as the interests of the proletariat can be summarized as the opposite: "to get the most pay for the least amount of work." In this, we can see how class struggle is inherent within any class society, though the wording I use here is slightly adjusted to be more relevant to modern capitalism in its terminology.

I mean, not really. Teachers, for example, actually have an interest in lower working class wages because it drives up the demand for education, same as the owners of schools. On the other hand, plumbers have an interest in high working class wages because it helps them directly, and the owners of plumbing companies are usually more than willing to pay well to attract good employees.
Let's face it- in general, workers have more interests in common with their bosses than with their "comrades" in a different industry.

[The New California Republic]

It's almost like it's a point that wouldn't've been brought up again if CC didn't try to pretend that they're a social moderate or something. Weird how that works.

I share a combination of what can be considered a typical progressive and of a fragment of conservatism.

"a fragment of conservatism", that's certainly an interesting euphemism for it...

[Hatterleigh]

The Jews backed the bourgeoisie, nurtured him, brought about a world where his existence is desirable rather than merely tolerated. The Jews seek to destroy the moral harmony of the working classes to encourage their dependence on the bourgeoisie, and the government's backing causes them to succeed.
Both Jewish communism and Jewish capitalism are bad for the workers.

Wowza, that's certainly a yikes amount of anti-Semitism packed into just a couple of sentences.

Please stop saying yikes. Tell your associates to stop saying yikes. I truly cannot take it anymore. It's so annoying I hate it so much. Please tell your associates to talk like a normal human beings and not twitter comments I truly cannot take one more yikes

[Hatterleigh]

I partially disagree. While it is entirely correct that different material conditions will give rise to different cultural values, the interests of the bourgeoisie are, in all cases, diametrically opposed to those of their concurrent proletarian class. The interests of the bourgeoisie can be summarized down to "to have their workers do the most work for the least amount of pay," where as the interests of the proletariat can be summarized as the opposite: "to get the most pay for the least amount of work." In this, we can see how class struggle is inherent within any class society, though the wording I use here is slightly adjusted to be more relevant to modern capitalism in its terminology.

I mean, not really. Teachers, for example, actually have an interest in lower working class wages because it drives up the demand for education, same as the owners of schools. On the other hand, plumbers have an interest in high working class wages because it helps them directly, and the owners of plumbing companies are usually more than willing to pay well to attract good employees.
Let's face it- in general, workers have more interests in common with their bosses than with their "comrades" in a different industry.

Good point, bad example. Money doesn't exist in gommunism

[Diopolis]

I mean, not really. Teachers, for example, actually have an interest in lower working class wages because it drives up the demand for education, same as the owners of schools. On the other hand, plumbers have an interest in high working class wages because it helps them directly, and the owners of plumbing companies are usually more than willing to pay well to attract good employees.
Let's face it- in general, workers have more interests in common with their bosses than with their "comrades" in a different industry.

Good point, bad example. Money doesn't exist in gommunism

If you mean by communism what the eastern bloc practiced, they certainly had an equivalent to income stratification in practice.
If you mean by communism what marxist theoreticians mean, you are correct, but it is completely irrelevant because communism in this sense is a four sided time cube.

[Diopolis]

The Jews backed the bourgeoisie, nurtured him, brought about a world where his existence is desirable rather than merely tolerated. The Jews seek to destroy the moral harmony of the working classes to encourage their dependence on the bourgeoisie, and the government's backing causes them to succeed.
Both Jewish communism and Jewish capitalism are bad for the workers.

Wowza, that's certainly a yikes amount of anti-Semitism packed into just a couple of sentences.

And there goes the "he is politically incorrect and therefore evil" response.

[Communal concils]

Of course the bourgeoisie.

The jew isn't a threat or bad thing, but only Zionist.
I rather orthodox Judaism over reform Judaism, The orthodox jew is anti-zionist.
Here's proof : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKplabTRuak

That's your proof? A few jews who support palestine? That's not even related to what we were talking about! Israel has nothing to do with this. I didn't even say jews were bad

well okay. as I was saying, not all jews are jewish in religion or behavior.

[Torrocca]

Wowza, that's certainly a yikes amount of anti-Semitism packed into just a couple of sentences.

And there goes the "he is politically incorrect and therefore evil" response.

Weird how I didn't call you evil despite identifying the very obvious anti-Semitism you just peddled. Even weirder how you're trying to deflect away from your own anti-Semitism.

[Diopolis]

And there goes the "he is politically incorrect and therefore evil" response.

Weird how I didn't call you evil despite identifying the very obvious anti-Semitism you just peddled. Even weirder how you're trying to deflect away from your own anti-Semitism.

And so? The Jews foster the power of the Bourgeoisie by acting as agents to spread moral decay in the non-bourgeoisie. In return the Bourgeoisie protect the Jews.
I don't know that anyone is confused as to whether it's antisemitism or not.

[Communal concils]

And there goes the "he is politically incorrect and therefore evil" response.

Weird how I didn't call you evil despite identifying the very obvious anti-Semitism you just peddled. Even weirder how you're trying to deflect away from your own anti-Semitism.

This is interesting .

[Bear Stearns]

My ideal authoritarian state would be a cross between 1920s America and Singapore.

[Vetalia]

Weird how I didn't call you evil despite identifying the very obvious anti-Semitism you just peddled. Even weirder how you're trying to deflect away from your own anti-Semitism.

And so? The Jews foster the power of the Bourgeoisie by acting as agents to spread moral decay in the non-bourgeoisie. In return the Bourgeoisie protect the Jews.
I don't know that anyone is confused as to whether it's antisemitism or not.

If the Jews are such eternal masterminds in charge of everything, couldn't we stop their nefarious plans by becoming Jewish ourselves?

[Communal concils]

My ideal authoritarian state would be a cross between 1920s America and Singapore.

That's very fascinating. It is nice to hear that you care about rapid economic growth an development.

I like Lee Kuan Yew , he turned a slum into a wonderful city.

[Bear Stearns]

My ideal authoritarian state would be a cross between 1920s America and Singapore.

That's very fascinating. It is nice to hear that you care about rapid economic growth an development.

I like Lee Kuan Yew , he turned a slum into a wonderful city.

Of course, I'd rather live in a more democratic and libertarian society, but Singapore's economic pragmatism and 1920s America's racial nationalism are nice.

[Communal concils]

That's very fascinating. It is nice to hear that you care about rapid economic growth an development.

I like Lee Kuan Yew , he turned a slum into a wonderful city.

Of course, I'd rather live in a more democratic and libertarian society, but Singapore's economic pragmatism and 1920s America's racial nationalism are nice.

That's interesting.

[Communal concils]

Marx's first mistake is assuming "the workers" are a homogenous group with the same interests, needs and beliefs.

I partially disagree. While it is entirely correct that different material conditions will give rise to different cultural values, the interests of the bourgeoisie are, in all cases, diametrically opposed to those of their concurrent proletarian class. The interests of the bourgeoisie can be summarized down to "to have their workers do the most work for the least amount of pay," where as the interests of the proletariat can be summarized as the opposite: "to get the most pay for the least amount of work." In this, we can see how class struggle is inherent within any class society, though the wording I use here is slightly adjusted to be more relevant to modern capitalism in its terminology.

I agree with you , Comrade.