NationStates Jolt Archive


Calling all Libertarian, Left Wing and Council Communists

16-03-2003, 03:30
The Axis OF Proletarian Evil Needs You! Sense of humour required. Stalinists, Maoists and similar totalitarians need not apply. Trots can, but make even a single reference to "what about the programme" and you'll be on your arse pal!

Our region is small but friendly. Well, not so much friendly as it is small.

Many fringe benefits.

Dont delay, apply today! We would especially welcome gay nations to fight the rather silly homophobia that causes people to lose all sense of fun.

Comradely yours,

Premier Punkachu.
imported_1248B
16-03-2003, 06:41
The Axis OF Proletarian Evil Needs You! Sense of humour required. Stalinists, Maoists and similar totalitarians need not apply. Trots can, but make even a single reference to "what about the programme" and you'll be on your arse pal!

Our region is small but friendly. Well, not so much friendly as it is small.

Many fringe benefits.

Dont delay, apply today! We would especially welcome gay nations to fight the rather silly homophobia that causes people to lose all sense of fun.

Comradely yours,

Premier Punkachu.

fringe benefits you say?

does this mean membership will come with a free copy of the immensely popular manual course "How To Be A Good Proletarian"?

"Marx Collected Work" will be tax reductable? yes? :)

and how high is The Axis of Proletarian Evil on the top 10 list of Most Evil Axises of All Time? is it a prestiguous axis or one of those wannabee axises? :(

sincerely curious :)
Copiosa Scotia
17-03-2003, 00:01
It should be mentioned at this point that the use of the words "libertarian" and "communist" in the same breath is blasphemy.
American Militarists
17-03-2003, 00:26
"It should be mentioned at this point that the use of the words 'libertarian' and 'Communist' in the same breath is blasphemy."

That is such a true statement. Socialism is economically the very opposite of all libertarian or conservative capitalist economics. Socialists tend to force their opinions on others, whereas for the most part libertarians don't really care what others do so long as it doesn't cost others there freedom. Libertarians are strongly against big government and intrusion on people's personal lives, while the majority of socialists and fascists call for these very actions.

Plus, socialism has been proven time and time again to fail. Meanwhile, Capitalist and pseudo-capitalist economics have been shown to work. Fascist economics, which are a combination of capitalism and militarization/national industry building programs coupled with left and right wing ideas, have also been shown to work (though at the expense of others). Why do you people think that the capitalist or capitalist leaning countries economies and societies have succeeded while the radical and communistic societies have failed? Because socialism destroys incentive by redistributing wealth.

I think that we should as UN members push a resolution to protect industry in all countries, by ending socialism in all of these states. It is costing the citizens of these countries money, lives, and all dreams of economic security. The workers, corporations, and everyone who has ever handled money deserve better than socialism. They deserve to be assured that their money will not be taken away from them to spend on unsuccessful and costly programs.

Do you know who supported socialism as leaders? Lenin, Stalin, Hitler (to a degree), Mao, Mugabe, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Jhong and numerous other totalitarian monsters. Do you people want to be in the same moral league as these people? Do you want to be associated with Nazis and Soviets? No, I didn't think so. All I can say to you is this:

END COMMUNISM! DESTROY THE FAR LEFT!
17-03-2003, 04:38
Libertarian communism=anarchism. you silly man :P
17-03-2003, 04:48
Well, technically, if you're going to call it communism then it's already as libertarian as you can get. Although I can understand applying the adjective on this forum to keep the insane ├╝berfascists at least somewhat at bay. ^_^
17-03-2003, 06:56
Maybe I should have put anarchist in the first place ^.^;; cos thats what a libertarian communist actually is. Keeping out the uberfascists? Nah, I'd sooner keep out Maoist, Stalinist and other sect nutters. I deal with them enough already IRL. Someone save me from my friends! ^.^;;;;

Premier Punkachu
17-03-2003, 07:00
"It should be mentioned at this point that the use of the words 'libertarian' and 'Communist' in the same breath is blasphemy....plap plap plap plap"


I take it you won't be joining us then. Well, its your loss. Fringe benefits inlcuded a free bag of cheesey poofs this week.

Well, you'll be lame.

Premier Punkachu
17-03-2003, 07:08
To enlighten international politics:

The founder of Gilias (me) is himself an anarchist, altho' Gilias is a socio-anarchic economy. To clarify things - Libertarian COmmunism is basically a more extreme left-libertarian. Anarchism is pure libertarianism taken to its extreme.

There are basicvally three axes of politics - Authoritarian (fascist) / Libertarian (anarchist), which concerns freedom of thought; Left (socialism) / Right (free market economy) which concerns freedom of the economy; and Pacifist / Militarist, which concerns international policy on warfare.

www.politicalcompass.com should sort things for you

Incidentally, The Red Block is floundering, what should entice me to join the Axis?
17-03-2003, 08:05
Incidentally, The Red Block is floundering, what should entice me to join the Axis?

Er...cheesey poofs? There are a lot of workers' regions actually; I would suggest you find a nation you like the look of and see what region they belong to. The Axis Of Proletarian Evil only contains 17 nations and therefore might be too small for what you are looking for.

Still, you're more than welcome over here ^_^

Punkachu
17-03-2003, 08:55
The name is wrong, since I am a communist, and I don't find it evil. But I wil;l drop in to see what kind of nations are you :wink: .
17-03-2003, 09:59
socialism has been proven time and time again to fail. Meanwhile, Capitalist and pseudo-capitalist economics have been shown to work.

A very common argument, and the reason it's unfair is that democracy has had far longer to evolve than socialism. As counter-examples, Kerala has been extremely successful as a socialist state, and Hitler was elected by a democracy. In your country, your democracy is represented by a man who did not have the majority of votes, and got in because his Daddy was economically powerful. In my country, Britian, the Prime Minister is pursuing a course of action against the wishes of his people. These are examples of democracy failing to work.
imported_1248B
17-03-2003, 11:21
Hitler was elected by a democracy.

he would most likely have loved that, but alas, he had to commit a coup in order to get into power :(

and from then on, 1933, Germany was as totalitarian as you can get :evil:
17-03-2003, 13:05
A true, direct democracy does not work, as the election of Adolf Hitler exemplifies. People will vote for what benefits them most, financially or otherwise (though, usually, financially). Once a corrupted majority realizes their power, personal freedoms and the common good become subject to the votes of self-serving voters. That is the argument for operating as a republic, such as is done in America. Yet, that too fails when those in office do not accurately represent, in their votes and legislation, the desires of the people. If they did represent the will of the people, do you think Americans would be paying as much as 40 percent of their incomes in taxes?
imported_The Infinite Dunes
17-03-2003, 13:47
he would most likely have loved that, but alas, he had to commit a coup in order to get into power :(

Err... As far as i can remember from my history lessons.
1) Hitler attempted two Putches to gain power in Germany, and FAILED
2) Was sent to prison where he wrote Mein Kampf
3) Once free he joined a socialisr party and soon made it his own.
4) WAS apppointed Chancellor of German Republic
5) WAS elected by a huge majority.
6) Parliment VOTED (by free choice) to grant Hitler Totalitarian Emergency Powers to supress a communist rebellion
7) Decided to make his Totalitarian Emergency Powers Permanent.
8 ) rebuilt Economy (by manipulating the Stats
9) Invaded a few east european Countries (All of which surrenders imediatly to Germany

Well I learnt that a few years ago... I think its all accurate
imported_1248B
17-03-2003, 14:11
he would most likely have loved that, but alas, he had to commit a coup in order to get into power :(

Err... As far as i can remember from my history lessons.
1) Hitler attempted two Putches to gain power in Germany, and FAILED
2) Was sent to prison where he wrote Mein Kampf
3) Once free he joined a socialisr party and soon made it his own.
4) WAS apppointed Chancellor of German Republic
5) WAS elected by a huge majority.
6) Parliment VOTED (by free choice) to grant Hitler Totalitarian Emergency Powers to supress a communist rebellion
7) Decided to make his Totalitarian Emergency Powers Permanent.
8 ) rebuilt Economy (by manipulating the Stats
9) Invaded a few east european Countries (All of which surrenders imediatly to Germany

Well I learnt that a few years ago... I think its all accurate

your "history books" failed to point out a lot :(

for example, the fact that on 23rd of May the nazi party FORCED a enabling act from parlement, which doesn't sound like "free choice" to me and thus cannot be seen as constitutional and democratic.
17-03-2003, 14:22
A very common argument, and the reason it's unfair is that democracy has had far longer to evolve than socialism.

I disagree with the scale socialism-democracy. As I see it, socialism is a way to handle things economically, whereas democracy is a way of government: a way to handle things politically.
I'd rather look to them as two different scales: one of democracy-totalitarism and one of socialism-capitalism.

By the way, I think a couple of social-democratic countries do demonstrate that socialism (of a sorts) does work - and might work better than capitalism - at least when I'm judging capitalism's results by the domestic situation in some large cities in the US.

For example, when looking at some scandinavian countries, we see very high taxrates; however, these translate in an equally high level of social security. So: almost delay for medical treatment, free travel by cab for disabled people, cheap public transport, affordable daycare, so many women can have full-time jobs....

I'll leave it to all of you to weigh the benefits of all-out capitalism against a system that is more tempered by a measure of socialism. In my opinion, the outcome will depend on:
1) your own wellbeing, and
2) your level of egoism ;)
17-03-2003, 14:25
A very common argument, and the reason it's unfair is that democracy has had far longer to evolve than socialism.

I disagree with the scale socialism-democracy. As I see it, socialism is a way to handle things economically, whereas democracy is a way of government: a way to handle things politically.
I'd rather look to them as two different scales: one of democracy-totalitarism and one of socialism-capitalism.

By the way, I think a couple of social-democratic countries do demonstrate that socialism (of a sorts) does work - and might work better than capitalism - at least when I'm judging capitalism's results by the domestic situation in some large cities in the US.

For example, when looking at some scandinavian countries, we see very high taxrates; however, these translate in an equally high level of social security. So: almost delay for medical treatment, free travel by cab for disabled people, cheap public transport, affordable daycare, so many women can have full-time jobs....

I'll leave it to all of you to weigh the benefits of all-out capitalism against a system that is more tempered by a measure of socialism. In my opinion, the outcome will depend on:
1) your own wellbeing, and
2) your level of egoism ;)
17-03-2003, 22:05
Threatening Trots right off the bat is definatively sectarian.


Trabatorio Fluenza
Mongol-Fein Grand Ambassador to lesser beings
Copiosa Scotia
17-03-2003, 23:00
I disagree with the scale socialism-democracy. As I see it, socialism is a way to handle things economically, whereas democracy is a way of government: a way to handle things politically.
I'd rather look to them as two different scales: one of democracy-totalitarism and one of socialism-capitalism.

Agreed.

By the way, I think a couple of social-democratic countries do demonstrate that socialism (of a sorts) does work - and might work better than capitalism - at least when I'm judging capitalism's results by the domestic situation in some large cities in the US.

OOC: Even though I would never agree to this in-character, you're right. Sweden is a prime example.
18-03-2003, 00:07
Threatening Trots right off the bat is definatively sectarian.


Trabatorio Fluenza
Mongol-Fein Grand Ambassador to lesser beings

Yeah it is and there's nothing those Rebuild The Secretariat For Thinking about Forming a Regroupment for the calling of a new group to discuss forming a caucus for the discussion of the reforging of a new new new new new new Fourth International bastards can do about it either!!

MUHAHAHAHA!

Comradely,

Premier punkachu
Yorke
18-03-2003, 01:47
As far as I've seen, The point where most governments (and people for that matter) go wrong, is when they start becoming righteous. No one can knoww the truth beyond one thing: Mankind is good, and therefore no one can know good, or evil. To solve this, the Nation of Yorke, goes for an approach of completely non-violent approach to government. Once one has reached absolute equality, and done so non-violently, can a nation be true, and good. For as long as you adhere to this one truth, you can avoid this Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Etc. (or atleast that's what I think)
18-03-2003, 03:06
Once one has reached absolute equality, and done so non-violently, can a nation be true, and good.

Our nation has neither prisons, a police force, secret service or a standing army. Criminals, counter revolutionaries and other anti social types are tried fairly and democratically by the community that they have commited crimes against (there is no central 'justice system') and if found guilty are sent to a perfectly inhabitable island. We have attempted to open negotiations with Naziland to accept that nation's gay refugees in return for the Nazis on Jeckle island (where criminals are kept).

If that isnt non violent, I dunno what is.

Premier Punkachu.
18-03-2003, 03:15
Once one has reached absolute equality, and done so non-violently, can a nation be true, and good.

Our nation has neither prisons, a police force, secret service or a standing army. Criminals, counter revolutionaries and other anti social types are tried fairly and democratically by the community that they have commited crimes against (there is no central 'justice system') and if found guilty are sent to a perfectly inhabitable island. We have attempted to open negotiations with Naziland to accept that nation's gay refugees in return for the Nazis on Jeckle island (where criminals are kept).

If that isnt non violent, I dunno what is.

Premier Punkachu.

Ditto that. No prisons, no army, and a police force that mostly directs traffic and little else (there's no crime for them to deal with). Anyone that actually does commit a crime is given free counseling and evaluation to help them overcome whatever problem may have led them to do so. In a recent census, 92% of the population reported affiliation with the Church of Vash the Stampede, which is a philosphical construction that takes pacifism to nigh-insane levels. Our government's motto is "The Best Defense is to Not Be Offensive" (the official one is "LOVE AND PEACE!"). So yeah...we've got the whole nonviolence thing downpat. The word Kitsylvanian might as well be synonymous with 'pacifist.' ^^
18-03-2003, 04:13
Hitler was elected by a democracy.

he would most likely have loved that, but alas, he had to commit a coup in order to get into power :(

and from then on, 1933, Germany was as totalitarian as you can get :evil:

No, Gilia is correct. Hitler was elected by a democracy. He quickly changed it into something else, but the National Socialist party was one of many right of center parties at the time. Hitler campaigned during a major depression and offered free bread and soup at all of his rallies. As many people were going hungry, this was extremely popular and one of the reasons his party won.
18-03-2003, 11:50
http://www.yre.org.uk/hitler.html
Jello Biafra
04-04-2003, 09:57
Socialism hasn't been proven to fail due to the fact that it's never been implemented in a country. Sure, the USSR CALLED itself socialist, but it wasn't. The same goes for Cuba, China, etc. Totalitarianism and socialism are two separate things entirely.

Furthermore, I believe it's entirely possible to be libertarian on a social level and socialist on an economic level.
The New Church
11-09-2003, 15:50
The Axis OF Proletarian Evil Needs You! Sense of humour required. Stalinists, Maoists and similar totalitarians need not apply. Trots can, but make even a single reference to "what about the programme" and you'll be on your arse pal!

Our region is small but friendly. Well, not so much friendly as it is small.

Many fringe benefits.

Dont delay, apply today! We would especially welcome gay nations to fight the rather silly homophobia that causes people to lose all sense of fun.

Comradely yours,

Premier Punkachu.

Well, an alliance of libertarians and liberals is definately needed at this time, but I don't know what a Council Communist is.
11-09-2003, 17:16
"Libertarian socialist" or "libertarian communist" is an oxymoron. One cannot be free when his life is considered subordinate to society.