LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[Dumb Ideologies]

"You can vote for whoever you like as long as its me!"

You can have the model T in any color as long as it's black.

Nowadays the marketing would be "black only as a symbol of racial solidarity". And the trim would be made in an outsourced sweatshop.

[Ostroeuropa]

Biden has come through with that compromise solution he was billed as being indispensable for.

Trump orders police to go out and do violent crackdowns to maintain police shooting suspects.

Protestors suggest "Don't shoot suspects".

Biden, with that "Getting things done" and "Negotiator" ability, says; "Shoot suspects in the legs instead of the heart.".

Peak Democratic Party.

Get with the program jack, Incremental change, vote blue no matter who.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Biden has come through with that compromise solution he was billed as being indispensable for.

Trump orders police to go out and do violent crackdowns to maintain police shooting suspects.

Protestors suggest "Don't shoot suspects".

Biden, with that "Getting things done" and "Negotiator" ability, says; "Shoot suspects in the legs instead of the heart.".

Peak Democratic Party.

Get with the program jack, Incremental change, vote blue no matter who.

A compromise usually means it won't work

[The Reformed American Republic]

He recognized that evil men can come to power in the name of that ideology, but he made it clear that IngSoc in 1984 goes against what socialism stood for. He was just warning people against authoritarian forms of socialism.

I think socialism is inherently authoritarian to totalitarian though.

I continuously forget that you and Novus America are two different people.

This is an old post, I know, but I think this new nation will fix that problem.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Get with the program jack, Incremental change, vote blue no matter who.

Not even incremental change. Biden promised nothing will change.

[Byeclase]

Controversial topic for some:

I think that contrary to the majority opinion I perceive in the forum here, that the problem of the party in the USSR was being too authoritarian, I'll criticize here that the party had a problem of liberalism.
-
Due to the low birth rates and devastation of war, there were steps backwards in the USSR in the area of women rights and family as institution during the period of Stalin as secretary general.

The mothers got medals for getting kids, abortions were prosecuted and it was harder getting divorce.

Although these kind of measures may be necessary in their circumstances, since they had to recover from war and low birthrates, this measure is obviously problematic, bad for women and the objective doesn't have to be thrown away.
From 1944, any mother could choose to have her child brought up in a state-run institution, but most of women still chose to remain in the traditional institution of marriage, and preferring part-jobs and doing chores in home.

I think the party had some liberal bits yet in this topic, Kollontai thought it would wither away alone in socialism without taking into account this problem of birth rates, and I think she was proven wrong since mothers still chose the traditional institution over state-run institutions.

I think this undermines the revolutionary zeal and hinders the independence of women subjugating them to men, making them simply not able to check what's actually going on in work and in democratic decisions, contributing as another brick in the wall for the restoration of capitalism, not to say delaying the elimination of the division of work.
As shown empirically, I don't think this old institution withers away alone by itself in a lower stage, as there must be a collective effort, it may wither away in a higher stage through automation of work and elevation of consciousness; however, in the lower stage, I think we must encourage the culture and even put sanctions on the traditional institution so it isn't worth it for those lazy conservative women and controlling men (I consider this is the foundation where rightism enters into the family, basically short term egoism) after the birth rates are raised.

Personally, if the sustainability of the social system was in danger, I may be willing to voluntarily "cease myself" when reaching old age if I can't be useful anymore for the country, helping to kill the dangerous dichotomy for the advancement of the people and communism, but state decisions have still to be taken.

So I want to know what do you think of taking these kind of measures as a revolutionary? Do you think the party was too liberal in this matter and a contribution to its downfall?

[Northern Davincia]

Controversial topic for some:

I think that contrary to the majority opinion I perceive in the forum here, that the problem of the party in the USSR was being too authoritarian, I'll criticize here that the party had a problem of liberalism.
-
Due to the low birth rates and devastation of war, there were steps backwards in the USSR in the area of women rights and family as institution during the period of Stalin as secretary general.

The mothers got medals for getting kids, abortions were prosecuted and it was harder getting divorce.

Although these kind of measures may be necessary in their circumstances, since they had to recover from war and low birthrates, this measure is obviously problematic, bad for women and the objective doesn't have to be thrown away.
From 1944, any mother could choose to have her child brought up in a state-run institution, but most of women still chose to remain in the traditional institution of marriage, and preferring part-jobs and doing chores in home.

I think the party had some liberal bits yet in this topic, Kollontai thought it would wither away alone in socialism without taking into account this problem of birth rates, and I think she was proven wrong since mothers still chose the traditional institution over state-run institutions.

I think this undermines the revolutionary zeal and hinders the independence of women subjugating them to men, making them simply not able to check what's actually going on in work and in democratic decisions, contributing as another brick in the wall for the restoration of capitalism, not to say delaying the elimination of the division of work.
As shown empirically, I don't think this old institution withers away alone by itself in a lower stage, as there must be a collective effort, it may wither away in a higher stage through automation of work and elevation of consciousness; however, in the lower stage, I think we must encourage the culture and even put sanctions on the traditional institution so it isn't worth it for those lazy conservative women and controlling men (I consider this is the foundation where rightism enters into the family, basically short term egoism) after the birth rates are raised.

Personally, if the sustainability of the social system was in danger, I may be willing to voluntarily "cease myself" when reaching old age if I can't be useful anymore for the country, helping to kill the dangerous dichotomy for the advancement of the people and communism, but state decisions have still to be taken.

So I want to know what do you think of taking these kind of measures as a revolutionary? Do you think the party was too liberal in this matter and a contribution to its downfall?

It sounds like the Soviet medals were handed out like candy.
The efforts to maintain birthrates seem more reactionary than revolutionary, if the goal of revolution is to make such measures unnecessary.

[Cekoviu]

Controversial topic for some:

I think that contrary to the majority opinion I perceive in the forum here, that the problem of the party in the USSR was being too authoritarian, I'll criticize here that the party had a problem of liberalism.
-
Due to the low birth rates and devastation of war, there were steps backwards in the USSR in the area of women rights and family as institution during the period of Stalin as secretary general.

The mothers got medals for getting kids, abortions were prosecuted and it was harder getting divorce.

Although these kind of measures may be necessary in their circumstances, since they had to recover from war and low birthrates, this measure is obviously problematic, bad for women and the objective doesn't have to be thrown away.
From 1944, any mother could choose to have her child brought up in a state-run institution, but most of women still chose to remain in the traditional institution of marriage, and preferring part-jobs and doing chores in home.

I think the party had some liberal bits yet in this topic, Kollontai thought it would wither away alone in socialism without taking into account this problem of birth rates, and I think she was proven wrong since mothers still chose the traditional institution over state-run institutions.

I think this undermines the revolutionary zeal and hinders the independence of women subjugating them to men, making them simply not able to check what's actually going on in work and in democratic decisions, contributing as another brick in the wall for the restoration of capitalism, not to say delaying the elimination of the division of work.
As shown empirically, I don't think this old institution withers away alone by itself in a lower stage, as there must be a collective effort, it may wither away in a higher stage through automation of work and elevation of consciousness; however, in the lower stage, I think we must encourage the culture and even put sanctions on the traditional institution so it isn't worth it for those lazy conservative women and controlling men (I consider this is the foundation where rightism enters into the family, basically short term egoism) after the birth rates are raised.

Personally, if the sustainability of the social system was in danger, I may be willing to voluntarily "cease myself" when reaching old age if I can't be useful anymore for the country, helping to kill the dangerous dichotomy for the advancement of the people and communism, but state decisions have still to be taken.

So I want to know what do you think of taking these kind of measures as a revolutionary? Do you think the party was too liberal in this matter and a contribution to its downfall?

Erm, how exactly do you think restricting women's rights to abortion and divorce is a liberal move?

[Byeclase]

Erm, how exactly do you think restricting women's rights to abortion and divorce is a liberal move?

That part wasn't liberal (justified by low birthrates), but after seeing that women were choosing traditional marriage, they didn't encourage a culture against it or put sanctions on the conservative family.

Anti-liberalism has to be directed in the two sides. Only one side remains either the liberalism of socdems or rightist conservatism.

[Cekoviu]

Erm, how exactly do you think restricting women's rights to abortion and divorce is a liberal move?

That part wasn't liberal (justified by low birthrates), but after seeing that women were choosing traditional marriage, they didn't encourage a culture against it or put sanctions on the conservative family.

Okay, and you'd prefer that the government destroy the traditional family and simply push women into a different form of subjugation??

[Shanghai industrial complex]

It sounds like the Soviet medals were handed out like candy.
The efforts to maintain birthrates seem more reactionary than revolutionary, if the goal of revolution is to make such measures unnecessary.

Even if they lost nearly a third of their youth males in the war?

[Byeclase]

That part wasn't liberal (justified by low birthrates), but after seeing that women were choosing traditional marriage, they didn't encourage a culture against it or put sanctions on the conservative family.

Okay, and you'd prefer that the government destroy the traditional family and simply push women into a different form of subjugation??

I prefer that they're directed towards no-subjugation, which I think the alternative I said does, but true freedom can only be achieved in the higher phase when material needs can be satisfied without division of work, and even pain or even work itself (automation).

It sounds like the Soviet medals were handed out like candy.
The efforts to maintain birthrates seem more reactionary than revolutionary, if the goal of revolution is to make such measures unnecessary.

Even if they lost nearly a third of their youth males in the war?

Well said, we're materialists and not utopians. What hinders and makes impossible the objective is against communism.

[Cekoviu]

Okay, and you'd prefer that the government destroy the traditional family and simply push women into a different form of subjugation??

I prefer that they're directed towards no-subjugation, which I think the alternative I said does, but true freedom can only be achieved in the higher phase when material needs can be satisfied without division of work, and even pain or even work itself (automation).

Preventing women from making their own decisions about whom to marry and how they want to raise children is subjugation. And society is not modular; you can't just turn on oppression until you decide it's "worked" and then immediately turn it off so that everything is dandy.

[Byeclase]

Preventing women from making their own decisions about whom to marry and how they want to raise children is subjugation. And society is not modular; you can't just turn on oppression until you decide it's "worked" and then immediately turn it off so that everything is dandy.

I think this is liberalism, you focus on the individual perspective and not as a whole, to what leads to the advancement and to its downfall. There are both conservative women and men, and we'd restrict decisions on rightist remnants, no matter if they're men or women.

Is it a progressive thing nowadays that children cannot be homeschooled, since parents can put all their conservative and conspiracy theory rubbish in their education.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Preventing women from making their own decisions about whom to marry and how they want to raise children is subjugation. And society is not modular; you can't just turn on oppression until you decide it's "worked" and then immediately turn it off so that everything is dandy.

I think this is liberalism, you focus on the individual perspective and not as a whole, to what leads to the advancement and to its downfall. There are both conservative women and men, and we'd restrict decisions on rightist remnants, no matter if they're men or women.

Is it a progressive thing nowadays that children cannot be homeschooled, since parents can put all their conservative and conspiracy theory rubbish in their education.

I think what you want to say is individualism

[Dylar]

Is it a progressive thing nowadays that children cannot be homeschooled, since parents can put all their conservative and conspiracy theory rubbish in their education.

I'm pretty sure that's not how homeschooling works.

[Byeclase]

I think this is liberalism, you focus on the individual perspective and not as a whole, to what leads to the advancement and to its downfall. There are both conservative women and men, and we'd restrict decisions on rightist remnants, no matter if they're men or women.

Is it a progressive thing nowadays that children cannot be homeschooled, since parents can put all their conservative and conspiracy theory rubbish in their education.

I think what you want to say is individualism

Nevermind I consider it individualist, although not as much as individual anarchism or stirnerist egoism.

Is it a progressive thing nowadays that children cannot be homeschooled, since parents can put all their conservative and conspiracy theory rubbish in their education.

I'm pretty sure that's not how homeschooling works.

I think that if you have time to educate the children in a scientific way, you belong to a class which as a majority can't teach properly the kids and is biased against communism; and probably against progressive values.

[Cekoviu]

Preventing women from making their own decisions about whom to marry and how they want to raise children is subjugation. And society is not modular; you can't just turn on oppression until you decide it's "worked" and then immediately turn it off so that everything is dandy.

I think this is liberalism, you focus on the individual perspective and not as a whole, to what leads to the advancement and to its downfall. There are both conservative women and men, and we'd restrict decisions on rightist remnants, no matter if they're men or women.

Is it a progressive thing nowadays that children cannot be homeschooled, since parents can put all their conservative and conspiracy theory rubbish in their education.

I am considering the whole. I'm considering the strain that erasing the traditional family would put on society. I'm considering how your proposals would oppress the population to no real benefit other than being able to claim you aren't liberal. You may be technically (and laudably) avoiding individualism, but you're also being incredibly myopic in your outlook.

[Cekoviu]

Is it a progressive thing nowadays that children cannot be homeschooled, since parents can put all their conservative and conspiracy theory rubbish in their education.

I'm pretty sure that's not how homeschooling works.

In some rare circumstances, it is. There are also legitimate reasons to homeschool children, and I'd posit that the majority of homeschooling parents do so for those reasons.

[Byeclase]

I think this is liberalism, you focus on the individual perspective and not as a whole, to what leads to the advancement and to its downfall. There are both conservative women and men, and we'd restrict decisions on rightist remnants, no matter if they're men or women.

Is it a progressive thing nowadays that children cannot be homeschooled, since parents can put all their conservative and conspiracy theory rubbish in their education.

I am considering the whole. I'm considering the strain that erasing the traditional family would put on society. I'm considering how your proposals would oppress the population to no real benefit other than being able to claim you aren't liberal. You may be technically (and laudably) avoiding individualism, but you're also being incredibly myopic in your outlook.

I think three objectives are: achieving gender equality, wholesome education for children and prevention of the downfall of communism.
I want to hear your criticism, maybe you think sanctions would achieve the contrary effect as they may retaliate.

[Cekoviu]

I am considering the whole. I'm considering the strain that erasing the traditional family would put on society. I'm considering how your proposals would oppress the population to no real benefit other than being able to claim you aren't liberal. You may be technically (and laudably) avoiding individualism, but you're also being incredibly myopic in your outlook.

I think three objectives are: achieving gender equality, wholesome education for children and prevention of the downfall of communism.
I want to hear your criticism, maybe you think sanctions would achieve the contrary effect as they may retaliate.

I agree with the first two and not with the third (communism should not and cannot occur). Your sanctions contribute nothing to the first cause -- you simply replace one gender imbalance with another -- and has an unclear effect on the second (a lack of a traditional family might mean less of a chance for counterrevolutionary indoctrination, but also means that social education from parents is no longer present).

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I'm pretty sure that's not how homeschooling works.

In some rare circumstances, it is. There are also legitimate reasons to homeschool children, and I'd posit that the majority of homeschooling parents do so for those reasons.

Some people think they have the right to decide whether their children go to school or not. But children are not accessories of adults, which may damage children's right to receive the same level of education.For example, if parents are hippies who hate school, they may refuse to send their children to school. This possibility must be prevented from the system.To be honest, I can't think of any reason why refuse to send my children to school.It's social fair. I don't think any child should be born with a lower education than others.

[Northern Davincia]

It sounds like the Soviet medals were handed out like candy.
The efforts to maintain birthrates seem more reactionary than revolutionary, if the goal of revolution is to make such measures unnecessary.

Even if they lost nearly a third of their youth males in the war?

Yes. It is still reactionary, although I'm not one to say that reactionary things are bad.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Even if they lost nearly a third of their youth males in the war?

Yes. It is still reactionary, although I'm not one to say that reactionary things are bad.

Does the word "reaction" have any positive meaning?

[Byeclase]

I think three objectives are: achieving gender equality, wholesome education for children and prevention of the downfall of communism.
I want to hear your criticism, maybe you think sanctions would achieve the contrary effect as they may retaliate.

I agree with the first two and not with the third (communism should not and cannot occur). Your sanctions contribute nothing to the first cause -- you simply replace one gender imbalance with another -- and has an unclear effect on the second (a lack of a traditional family might mean less of a chance for counterrevolutionary indoctrination, but also means that social education from parents is no longer present).

I didn't mean taking the kids by the state and making parents unknown to them. I mean extending the family as a whole, parents can still give social education and they can even have more time for that since they have to work less working hours; however, the children can socialize and see other people and viewpoints; I think this may eliminate some egoism of the family, now it seems some families conceive the external world as dangerous and they care for themselves alone (and often rightly).