NationStates Jolt Archive

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/143/revolutionaries5ni.jpg

Right then. Here we are. Once again the Revolutionaries have emerged. Here to stand up against the capitalist state and acknowledge that the only way it can be taken down is through force. A party for the proleteriat, undiluted by bourgeoisie ideals and practices prepared to stand up for what is right.


TRANSITIONAL PARTY
*We need to make clear that this party is not reformist. We do not think true socialism can be achieved under the current system of democracy which is based on personality rather than skill. This party only exists to gain transitional demands for the workers.
*While other left-wing parties have good intentions, we argue that their attempts to change the system from within can only end in failure as they do not understand the nature of the capitalist state
*The main objective of this party is to form a vanguard for the revolution while simultaneously managing to temporarily alleviate the huge suffering of the working classes.
*Please take this into account as the rest of the manifesto is dealing primarily with our objectives within parliament as opposed to post-revolutionary activities

ECONOMY
*Nationalise all major industries and all those which are essential to the survival of human beings
*The minimum wage is to be raised to the level that the EU has currently deemed acceptable of £7.50 an hour
*Increase taxes on the rich and lower them on the poor
*Hand more power over to the trade unions- allow secondary picketing, bring back closed shops, etc.
*Pensions, money given to asylum seekers and the dole to be increased to a basic standard of living (at the billionaires’ expense)
*Crackdown on corporate criminals and those that try to avoid corporate taxes. If the company/ owners threaten to leave the country, their ban accounts will be frozen.

PUBLIC SERVICES
*Abolish private hospitals and put all healthcare under government control
*Prohibit the private sale of medicine and instead have pharmacies run by the state
*Legalise euthanasia
*Allow abortion up until 20 weeks for any reason. After that period only if the baby poses a physical threat to the mother will abortion be permitted
*Free contraception for all
*The government must abolish private schools and allow anybody to use them
*Religious and gender segregated schooling must end
*Religion/ philosophy must be taught to all children in a non-biased manner
*University education will be made free
*The army will be significantly reduced as we will stop sending troops to kill and die in imperialist wars
*The police must have the powers to stop and search without just cause based on your situation taken away
*Those police who are still unarmed will not be given guns as there are already enough cases of police brutality.
*The emphasis for prisons will beon rehabilitation and repayment to victims according to the wishes of the victims/families
*Capital punishment is to be declared brutal, inhumane and not relevant to a civilised society.

DRUGS
*Cannabis, ecstasy, speed, LSD, magic mushrooms and any “soft drugs” to be legalised and sold by licensed proprietors to over 16’s.
*“Hard drugs” to be legalised and controlled by the state, but they can only be taken in licensed, state-operated centres.
*Rehab to be available, free of cost, to anybody who wants it
*All those in jail for dealing/possessing drugs to be freed.
*Government funded research into making all drugs as safe as possible without reducing pleasurable effects.


OTHER ISSUES
*Fascist, racist, Neo-Nazi and 'far-right' parties will be allowed. However, should they choose to march or plan political events, they will be offered no assistance from the state in any shape or form.
*Complete freedom of speech allowed to all.
*Outlaw the holding of second homes
*Open all borders and allow complete freedom of movement, in compliance with the UN charter of human rights

Why the change of name?

I pretty much agree with most of the points in your manifesto.

Tax the rich, feed the poor, till we have no rich no more - 10 Years After

Taken as a whole your manifesto is naive and ignores reality. Some points, individually are ok (like raising the minimum wage). Where ever socialism has been tried though it resulted in a powerful and corrupt ruling class and a huge underclass that was completely dependant on the ruler's good graces for existence and survival. Socialism and Communism both ignore the basic human instinct to make things better for one's self and assume that all men will work for the betterment of everyone. They won't, most will work for the betterment of themselves and their families first.

Private schools generally provide a better education than government run ones, why shut them down?

Private industry does a better job at managing resources and providing jobs than the government does. Private industry is about getting things done efficiently. I've yet to see a government agency that operated on that philosophy.

Sorry, I won't be joining up anytime soon as I plan on keeping the money and things I worked hard to obtain for myself and my family instead of letting the government take them and distribute them to unwed crack whore mothers of 6.

Tax the rich, feed the poor, till we have no rich no more - 10 Years After

Taken as a whole your manifesto is naive and ignores reality. Some points, individually are ok (like raising the minimum wage). Where ever socialism has been tried though it resulted in a powerful and corrupt ruling class and a huge underclass that was completely dependant on the ruler's good graces for existence and survival. Socialism and Communism both ignore the basic human instinct to make things better for one's self and assume that all men will work for the betterment of everyone. They won't, most will work for the betterment of themselves and their families first.
Okay I have so many issues with this "human nature" bollocks.
1) Who's to say that there is such a thing as a solid human nature that never changes? Where is the evidence to prove this
2) If there is such a thing as an unchanging human nature then whos to say that it is inherently selfish? Why do people jump into burning buildings to save people they don't know?
3) If, as you assume, that there is an inherent human nature which is selfish, how does that stop people fighting for socialism- a system where the working class gets treated better than under capitalism?
4) If there is an inherently selfish human nature, humans ARENT ANIMALS. We are able to control our base urges, believe it or not. Say I find a girl attractive, you're human nature bollocks would dictate that I should jump her and impregnate her. Doesn't happen though, why is that?

Now for your point about socialism leading to people being enslaved. This happens when a bureaucratic caste takes control of the workers' state. As happened when Stalin took power in '24 Russia.
Other instances where the w/c has been put in a shit position by a "communist" government tend to come from when they are isolated from the revolution- in Cuba a small guerilla group took power, in China a peasant-led guerilla army took power. In both cases the working class was not involved in the struggle and so had no chance to develop its own instruments of power, thus leading to a ruling overcaste being formed.


Private schools generally provide a better education than government run ones, why shut them down?

Because they have more money and better resources than nationalised education they perform better. We don't want a two-tier system where people with less money are forced to a recieve a worse education, thus stopping them from developing into a full human being and/or getting a job that can stop them from being stuck in poverty.


Private industry does a better job at managing resources and providing jobs than the government does. Private industry is about getting things done efficiently. I've yet to see a government agency that operated on that philosophy.
Yeah, ever since we de-nationalised the rail services in England they're running SOO much better aren't they?


Sorry, I won't be joining up anytime soon as I plan on keeping the money and things I worked hard to obtain for myself and my family instead of letting the government take them and distribute them to unwed crack whore mothers of 6.
Heyy! Nice to see a bit of gold ol' fashioned prejudice thrown in there.

Why the change of name?

I pretty much agree with most of the points in your manifesto.

The change of name was done because I felt we were excluding revolutionary leftists who may not be explicitly trotskyist.

Socialism and Communism both ignore the basic human instinct to make things better for one's self and assume that all men will work for the betterment of everyone. They won't, most will work for the betterment of themselves and their families first.


How many times will that absurd myth about human "instinct" being individualistic and selfish need to be debunked? Those characteristics are the product of society. They're not inborn. Go and read one or two books about Tokelau; I'll be happy to provide you with a couple of titles. Similarly, read up on the many community-oriented societies where community primes over individuality.

Me and Ariddia agreeing. Ahhh this is nice.

It's nice to take a step away from intra-socialist debate for a minute.

When you say "revolutionary"... are you talking, specifically, about a violent revolution, or do you allow for the possibility of a peaceful revolution that completely eschews violence or uses it sparingly and only when all other options have been thoroughly investigated?

When you say "revolutionary"... are you talking, specifically, about a violent revolution, or do you allow for the possibility of a peaceful revolution that completely eschews violence or uses it sparingly and only when all other options have been thoroughly investigated?

Violent revolution, but before you get the wrong idea about us, let me just explain the need for a violent revolution-

1) We know that a peaceful revolution will be crushed immediately because not everyone will join us. There will still be nationalists and bourgeoisie loyalists who will be willing to crush any attempt at socialism. Only by accepting the need for violence can we hope to fight against them and have a chance of success.

2) Only through the act of a violent revolution can the working class establish the key elements of a workers' state. Self defence squads, militias, soviets, and so on. These are all necessarry to run a society which is still being threatened by capitalist elements.

Violent revolution, but before you get the wrong idea about us, let me just explain the need for a violent revolution-

1) We know that a peaceful revolution will be crushed immediately because not everyone will join us. There will still be nationalists and bourgeoisie loyalists who will be willing to crush any attempt at socialism. Only by accepting the need for violence can we hope to fight against them and have a chance of success.

2) Only through the act of a violent revolution can the working class establish the key elements of a workers' state. Self defence squads, militias, soviets, and so on. These are all necessarry to run a society which is still being threatened by capitalist elements.

So when this violent revolution takes place and these squads and such defend themselves against the bourgoisie, what happens when the capitalists are crushed? What about those socialist revolutionaries who don't want to give up the violence and weapons? Those who like the power given to them by guns and want to start harrassing and controlling innocent others? What will you do to those people?

EDIT: And oh yes, will you all give up your weapons after the revolution has ended? Or will they be kept for 'protecting the masses'?

Violent revolution, but before you get the wrong idea about us, let me just explain the need for a violent revolution-

1) We know that a peaceful revolution will be crushed immediately because not everyone will join us. There will still be nationalists and bourgeoisie loyalists who will be willing to crush any attempt at socialism. Only by accepting the need for violence can we hope to fight against them and have a chance of success.

2) Only through the act of a violent revolution can the working class establish the key elements of a workers' state. Self defence squads, militias, soviets, and so on. These are all necessarry to run a society which is still being threatened by capitalist elements.

Oh, I understand the rationale behind the idea of arming the workers and that the capitalists own the military and the police and will employ them to stamp out the revolution and all that. I'm just not entirely sure I am sold on the idea of the need for a violent overthrow of the system.

After all is done, how do you stop people from using their weapons to carve out a place for themselves at the top? Do you just put your faith in the armed workers to stop the warlords that will emerge from the chaos before they can seize power? Even if those who become warlords are the same charismatic leaders that headed the revolution?

So when this violent revolution takes place and these squads and such defend themselves against the bourgoisie, what happens when the capitalists are crushed? What about those socialist revolutionaries who don't want to give up the violence and weapons? Those who like the power given to them by guns and want to start harrassing and controlling innocent others? What will you do to those people?

EDIT: And oh yes, will you all give up your weapons after the revolution has ended? Or will they be kept for 'protecting the masses'?

You seem to be under the impression that its just the party that leads the revolution that's armed. It's all workers being armed to take down the capitalist state.

When the capitalists within the country are defeated and any imperialist forces driven out we will have to remain armed until such a time that there is no hostile force left in the whole world. Only at that point can we work on the idea of getting rid of guns.

Since when does a revolution involve the mob rule you imply?

You seem to be under the impression that its just the party that leads the revolution that's armed. It's all workers being armed to take down the capitalist state.

When the capitalists within the country are defeated and any imperialist forces driven out we will have to remain armed until such a time that there is no hostile force left in the whole world. Only at that point can we work on the idea of getting rid of guns.

Since when does a revolution involve the mob rule you imply?

Won't you always have to keep your weapons, to murder anyone who disagree's with your policies for one reason or another? There will always be someone who will disagree with you - if not a selfish capitalist than a man protecting his wife from people with guns running amok. So either you commit mass murder and kill anyone who dares disagree with you, or you keep your weapons forever.

You also say the workers will be given guns. What if, for some odd reason, they don't want to start fighting and killing other people, possibly even their neighbours? Will you shoot them, too? Imprison them? Ignore them?

Okay I have so many issues with this "human nature" bollocks.
1) Who's to say that there is such a thing as a solid human nature that never changes? Where is the evidence to prove this
Oh, I don’t know, several thousand years of human history work for me, but hey, that’s just me looking at what people have done before. I guess they could change in the future if they wanted to, how are you going to get them to want to though?

2) If there is such a thing as an unchanging human nature then whos to say that it is inherently selfish? Why do people jump into burning buildings to save people they don't know?
Some do it because it is their job, we call them firemen where I live. Some do it because, despite their selfish streak, they don’t want to see another person suffer and then die right in front of them, but I’d ask, for everyone that jumps in the building to save someone they don’t know, how many would and do refuse to jump in? I bet its more. My claim that human nature is inherently selfish is based on my observation of human history.

3) If, as you assume, that there is an inherent human nature which is selfish, how does that stop people fighting for socialism- a system where the working class gets treated better than under capitalism?
People who are fighting for socialism are either delusional in their belief it can be established and function or fight for it on the assumption that if they are successful, they’ll be one of the people in charge of running the show when its all over – it a selfish grab for power. As for it being a system where the working class get treated better, I think I would ask the people of the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, etc. if they got treated better under Socialism than U.S. citizens and Western Europe in general did under Capitalism.

4) If there is an inherently selfish human nature, humans ARENT ANIMALS. We are able to control our base urges, believe it or not. Say I find a girl attractive, you're human nature bollocks would dictate that I should jump her and impregnate her. Doesn't happen though, why is that?
People can control their base urges, sure and they do so all the time, for various reasons. Typically those reasons are selfish, you don’t jump the girl cause you want to avoid going to jail. If you could jump her without fear of any negative consequences, you’d do it in a heart beat to satisfy your animal instinct. Some people would refrain out of respect for their internal moral code of ethics that tell them they shouldn’t give into baser urges. By not giving in to those urges, their moral code tells them they are to be congratulated and that they are morally superior to others, fulfilling the selfish need to establish their own self worth.

Now for your point about socialism leading to people being enslaved. This happens when a bureaucratic caste takes control of the workers' state. As happened when Stalin took power in '24 Russia.
Other instances where the w/c has been put in a shit position by a "communist" government tend to come from when they are isolated from the revolution- in Cuba a small guerilla group took power, in China a peasant-led guerilla army took power. In both cases the working class was not involved in the struggle and so had no chance to develop its own instruments of power, thus leading to a ruling overcaste being formed.
But didn’t the people who seized this control say they were doing it in order to benefit the working class and they were going to put into place socialistic policies. Didn’t they nationalize industry and engage in wealth redistribution, which wiped out all the rich except those in power who worked hard to keep the power to themselves? Didn’t the “all men are equal” idea of socialism become the “all men are equal, but the government worker is more equal” practice. Once again revealing that human nature is selfish and once power was obtained it was going to be used for self advancement and well being.


Because they have more money and better resources than nationalised education they perform better. We don't want a two-tier system where people with less money are forced to a recieve a worse education, thus stopping them from developing into a full human being and/or getting a job that can stop them from being stuck in poverty.
Oh, now that’s a good idea, lets make all the schools equally bad. The last thing we want are good schools with more resources giving people a better education. You admit that nationalized schools don’t have what it takes to give a good education and then demand that the schools that do have it be disbanded or have their resources taken away? That’s idiocy in my book.

Yeah, ever since we de-nationalised the rail services in England they're running SOO much better aren't they?
Since I don’t live in Britain I don’t have any idea how the rail service is working. However, in business you can have incompetence and ignorance and when you do, the businesses fail.

Heyy! Nice to see a bit of gold ol' fashioned prejudice thrown in there.
Prejudice? Where, how, saying I don’t want my hard earned $ being taken away and given to someone who won’t step up to the plate and take responsibility for their own fate is showing prejudice? Since when do unwed crack whores equate to racial/ethnic/religious etc. minorities?

Again, Socialism won’t work because far to many people are far to selfish to allow it to. If a socialist system was set up where everyone volunteered to be a part of it and worked to control their selfish nature, it might have a chance. However, I don’t see that happening anytime soon. The minute you use the government’s power to force it on people, you’ve put an oppressive minority in charge and they will work to stay in charge. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It may be a platitude, but it is usually true. I suggest you go re-read Animal Farm.

Right. I'll respond to your posts later because. To be quite frank, Im sick of arguing. I've been debating with 6 or so different people over the past 2 days and it's getting on my nerves. It's funny how nobody respects you once you say you're a revolutionary.

Violent revolution, but before you get the wrong idea about us, let me just explain the need for a violent revolution-

1) We know that a peaceful revolution will be crushed immediately because not everyone will join us. There will still be nationalists and bourgeoisie loyalists who will be willing to crush any attempt at socialism. Only by accepting the need for violence can we hope to fight against them and have a chance of success.

2) Only through the act of a violent revolution can the working class establish the key elements of a workers' state. Self defence squads, militias, soviets, and so on. These are all necessarry to run a society which is still being threatened by capitalist elements.

So basically, you know your views are an extreme minority, you know that your views would lead to bloody revolution simply because they are not strong enough to be accepted by the majority on their own merit, you even seem to know that many of the "workers" you claim to support will be fighting against you, yet you talk about how society is "threatened by capitalist elements."

Has it ever occured to you that since you're the one advocating violence, death and chaos, maybe YOU'RE the one who's a threat to society?

Right. I'll respond to your posts later because. To be quite frank, Im sick of arguing. I've been debating with 6 or so different people over the past 2 days and it's getting on my nerves. It's funny how nobody respects you once you say you're a revolutionary.

Erm, well.. I respect you. I'd just like to know how you plan to deal with the problems that result from a violent revolution, ie. the inevitable power vacuum and how to keep unsavoury types from filling it with autocracy. I mean, aside from a few little problems I have with being solely committed to revolution and ignoring the possibilities of reform (I would, personally, advocate that both options be kept open), I like the manifesto.

Oh, one other thing... how do you guys stand on religion? Do you take the orthodox Marxist-Leninist position of eliminating it, or do you have a more liberal stance?

Right. I'll respond to your posts later because. To be quite frank, Im sick of arguing. I've been debating with 6 or so different people over the past 2 days and it's getting on my nerves. It's funny how nobody respects you once you say you're a revolutionary.

If you feel I'm being disrespectful, I apologize, I am not intending any disrespect. However, discrediting your agenda and pointing out what I perceive to be flaws and fallacies in your assumptions is not disrespect, it is reasonable discourse and debate.

So basically, you know your views are an extreme minority, you know that your views would lead to bloody revolution simply because they are not strong enough to be accepted by the majority on their own merit, you even seem to know that many of the "workers" you claim to support will be fighting against you, yet you talk about how society is "threatened by capitalist elements."

Has it ever occured to you that since you're the one advocating violence, death and chaos, maybe YOU'RE the one who's a threat to society?

Oh for fucks sake. Try actually reading my arguments and then making your post relevant to them.

Oh for fucks sake. Try actually reading my arguments and then making your post relevant to them.

Touched a sore spot there, did I?

Firstly, Im sorry I bit your head off. It's just that I have stress and anxiety problems and basically being victimised (not by you per say) doesn't help

Erm, well.. I respect you. I'd just like to know how you plan to deal with the problems that result from a violent revolution, ie. the inevitable power vacuum and how to keep unsavoury types from filling it with autocracy. I mean, aside from a few little problems I have with being solely committed to revolution and ignoring the possibilities of reform (I would, personally, advocate that both options be kept open), I like the manifesto.

I don't see where this power vacuum idea is coming from. For the revolution to be launched we need to organise. Councils of workers, soldiers and so on. These will launch a dual power situation with the capitalist government until the revolution comes. The institutions established during and before the revolution will form the workers' state, so there is no power vacuum.


Oh, one other thing... how do you guys stand on religion? Do you take the orthodox Marxist-Leninist position of eliminating it, or do you have a more liberal stance?
If people wanna hold a religion, thats up to them. Im up for educating people about all the different types of religions so they can have an unbiased look at the situation. Id also advocate teaching the history of religion so people can see what it has been used for in the past.

Touched a sore spot there, did I?

Yeah, people who don't have the ability to read a post annoy me.

So basically, you know your views are an extreme minority, you know that your views would lead to bloody revolution simply because they are not strong enough to be accepted by the majority on their own merit, you even seem to know that many of the "workers" you claim to support will be fighting against you, yet you talk about how society is "threatened by capitalist elements."
No, I didnt say that at all. Say pacifist-communism was the ideology taken up by the vast majority of the working class, we would be buggered by a tiny minority who are willing to use violence. I also said (which you ignored) that a revolution was necessary to establish the institutions of the worker-state. Now if you would care to pay some attention to most posts I make, I say we should have a revolution and not a coup- this involves a majority of workers. This is why we cannot fight a majority of workers.


Has it ever occured to you that since you're the one advocating violence, death and chaos, maybe YOU'RE the one who's a threat to society?
I'm sorry. How many capitalist nations attempted to invade Russia once the bolshevik revolution happened?

I don't see where this power vacuum idea is coming from. For the revolution to be launched we need to organise. Councils of workers, soldiers and so on. These will launch a dual power situation with the capitalist government until the revolution comes. The institutions established during and before the revolution will form the workers' state, so there is no power vacuum.

So you're thinking of essentially having a shadow "government" set up already, and all that then has to happen is that the capitalist government is made impotent by the revolution, so the governing structure that is already in place just keeps going and assumes the relevant responsibilities?


If people wanna hold a religion, thats up to them. Im up for educating people about all the different types of religions so they can have an unbiased look at the situation. Id also advocate teaching the history of religion so people can see what it has been used for in the past.

I see. That's basically what I'd advocate as well. People need to be given enough knowledge on the subject so they can make up their own minds. One of the main problems that I have as a socialist is that so many of my comrades seem to think that, to be a legitimate socialist, I have to be become an atheist (again.) :(

Vote British

http://www.bobnewell.net/nucleus/media/1/20050331-johnbull.jpg

WE WANT YOU! VOTE NEW BRITISH IMPERIAL

Yeah, people who don't have the ability to read a post annoy me.


Cute.

I also said (which you ignored) that a revolution was necessary

I didn't ignore that at all. You say a revolution is "necessary." And I say that makes YOU the "threat to society." I don't see why your comprehension problem is lacking unless you're pretending to be dumb in order to evade the question.

I say we should have a revolution and not a coup- this involves a majority of workers. This is why we cannot fight a majority of workers.

Most of the "workers" don't at this point advocate the violent overthrow of society to institute your soviet wet dream. So, how will you convince them to become violent individuals who forsake peace and democracy?

I'm sorry. How many capitalist nations attempted to invade Russia once the bolshevik revolution happened?

...how many nations attempted to invade Russia BEFORE the revolution?

This is about the least relevant thing you've said so far. It isn't, in any way, a response to the post you quoted. ("Has it ever occured to you that since you're the one advocating violence, death and chaos, maybe YOU'RE the one who's a threat to society?")

Maybe, just maybe it's not me who's failing to read here.

And maybe, just maybe it's you and your anger and anxiety that's a threat, since you're so easily given to violence to achieve your aims. I've never advocated violence towards socialists the way you'd have no problems shooting people like me.

So yeah, you can stuff your self-righteousness because the shit you advocate is nothing less than "I'll gladly kill you in order to achieve my politic," incidentally the same thing terrorists would tell me just before they blow up some of my family in the WTC or Pentagon.

And maybe, just maybe it's you and your anger and anxiety that's a threat, since you're so easily given to violence to achieve your aims.

No. That's it. I've had enough. I have enough to deal with without ignorant little dicks like you saying this kind of shit to me.

Seeya NS

No. That's it. I've had enough. I have enough to deal with without ignorant little dicks like you saying this kind of shit to me.

Seeya NS

So does this mean I get no response?

DHomme, my ole' foe, I'll whore for you this one time.

Im applying to be a Revolutionary

No. That's it. I've had enough. I have enough to deal with without ignorant little dicks like you saying this kind of shit to me.

Seeya NS

Yeah, I'm not too thrilled with the prospect of violent overthrow of my country and killing or incarcerating or merely oppressing anyone who disagrees with your politics myself. But perhaps unlike you I don't get melodramatic about it.

there IS such things as bloodless Revolutions too

I posted 12 hours ago and not a single person has even tried to refute me, I therefore declare myself the winner of the debate and conclude that the socialist revolution proposed in this manifesto is acknowledged to be naive, unworkable and without merit.

http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/4473/kropotkin2po.png

That looks like Carl Menger. Huh.

The only way to acheive true equality is to start a nuclear war without prior warning so that the entirety of the human race is wiped off the earth.

For only by dying in a cataclysmal event can true equality in death be acheived.

For otherwise you have ye olde monuments and crypts and such.

I still win.

That looks like Carl Menger. Huh.
Its Peter Kropotkin. There aren't any famous anarcho-communists, ok? It's probably because, unlike other communists, they haven't killed millions.

Its Peter Kropotkin. There aren't any famous anarcho-communists, ok?

Mikhail Bakunin? Noam Chomsky?

I posted 12 hours ago and not a single person has even tried to refute me, I therefore declare myself the winner of the debate and conclude that the socialist revolution proposed in this manifesto is acknowledged to be naive, unworkable and without merit.
I Refute thee

Mikhail Bakunin? Noam Chomsky?
Bakunin is hardly famous and I find Chomsky to be incredibly annoying. Don’t know why, I just do.

Oh, I don’t know, several thousand years of human history work for me, but hey, that’s just me looking at what people have done before. I guess they could change in the future if they wanted to, how are you going to get them to want to though?

Yes, modern liberal capitalist "democracies" are really equivalent to ancient Egyptian despotisms, aren't they? :rolleyes:

People who are fighting for socialism are either delusional in their belief it can be established and function or fight for it on the assumption that if they are successful, they’ll be one of the people in charge of running the show when its all over – it a selfish grab for power.

Okay. So what? If the oppressed want power, give it to them; create egalitarian democracy, and everyone's selfishness will mean everyone's prosperity.

As for it being a system where the working class get treated better, I think I would ask the people of the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, etc. if they got treated better under Socialism than U.S. citizens and Western Europe in general did under Capitalism.

Except none of those countries practiced Socialism, let alone Communism.

People can control their base urges, sure and they do so all the time, for various reasons. Typically those reasons are selfish, you don’t jump the girl cause you want to avoid going to jail. If you could jump her without fear of any negative consequences, you’d do it in a heart beat to satisfy your animal instinct. Some people would refrain out of respect for their internal moral code of ethics that tell them they shouldn’t give into baser urges. By not giving in to those urges, their moral code tells them they are to be congratulated and that they are morally superior to others, fulfilling the selfish need to establish their own self worth.

Of course all actions are essentially self-assertions; we are not somebody else. In that sense, of course all human beings are selfish, and furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that sort of selfishness ("need to establish their own self worth.") Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, because even if human nature was to be extremely altruistic, altruism would still be "selfish" in that sense.

But didn’t the people who seized this control say they were doing it in order to benefit the working class and they were going to put into place socialistic policies.

They lied.

Didn’t they nationalize industry and engage in wealth redistribution, which wiped out all the rich except those in power who worked hard to keep the power to themselves? Didn’t the “all men are equal” idea of socialism become the “all men are equal, but the government worker is more equal” practice. Once again revealing that human nature is selfish and once power was obtained it was going to be used for self advancement and well being.

That's why you don't let the vanguard of the revolution centralize power into its own hands. You're arguing against the authoritarian interpretation of Leninism, not against socialism.

You're arguing against the authoritarian interpretation of Leninism,
But that is exactly what this party is. That's the problem.

Bakunin is hardly famous and I find Chomsky to be incredibly annoying. Don’t know why, I just do.
I think cause he speaks with a monotone

I think cause he speaks with a monotone

Read the transcripts, then; I hate listening to anybody (except George Galloway), so I do that in most cases anyway. Chomsky is worth paying attention to, nineteen times out of twenty. He is by no means always right, though.

Read the transcripts, then; I hate listening to anybody (except George Galloway), so I do that in most cases anyway. Chomsky is worth paying attention to, nineteen times out of twenty. He is by no means always right, though.
Chomsky doesnt speak in clever soundbites and that diminsihes the marketing potential of his manifesto

I Refute thee

lol, :p

lol, :p
I think thou art confusing socialism with communism

But that is exactly what this party is. That's the problem.

I couldn't have said it better myself, thank you.

But that is exactly what this party is. That's the problem.

DHomme and I argued this issue over at the UDCP thread; he's hardly an authoritarian, nor are most Trotskyist organizations these days. The socialist movement as a whole has undergone a noticeable libertarian shift since the 1960s, one intensified by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the widespread rejections of Stalinism on the Communist Left.

Yes, modern liberal capitalist "democracies" are really equivalent to ancient Egyptian despotisms, aren't they? :rolleyes:
First, answer the question, how do you get people to want to join in, especially the well-to-do? Second, ancient egyptian despotism is not the only historical system, there was a Roman republic that was basically capatilistic until Julius Caesar managed to get himself made emperor.
Okay. So what? If the oppressed want power, give it to them; create egalitarian democracy, and everyone's selfishness will mean everyone's prosperity.
This is nonsense, if the oppressed get power, they will keep it for themselves, please check your history book to see what has occurred everytime the "oppressed" were able to launch a succesful revolt.
Except none of those countries practiced Socialism, let alone Communism.
They said they did (oh, yeah, right, "they lied."). hmm, nationally owned means of production, collective farms, national railroads, a legislative body that represents the people (i.e. Politburo). Yep, you are right, Socialism had nothing to do with it. It was people who took control keeping control for themselves (oh, wait, that proves my point doesn't it, sorry).
Of course all actions are essentially self-assertions; we are not somebody else. In that sense, of course all human beings are selfish, and furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that sort of selfishness ("need to establish their own self worth.") Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, because even if human nature was to be extremely altruistic, altruism would still be "selfish" in that sense.
That's the point though. People are very rarely, if ever, completely altruistic with no regard to self, but this manifesto assumes they will be. Again, if everyone voluntarily assents to the idea, fine, it has a chance of success, but not everyone will. This manifesto calls for the violent overthrow of those who will not voluntarily assent and the seizing of control by "the worker." I contend the minute the worker is in control, he becomes exactly what he revolted to get rid of. He becomes "more equal" and will work to keep control.[/quote]
They lied.
How convient an excuse. What makes you so sure that others who advocate this system won't? How will you ensure there is no "power grab?"
That's why you don't let the vanguard of the revolution centralize power into its own hands. You're arguing against the authoritarian interpretation of Leninism, not against socialism.
How do you keep the vanguard of the revolution from centralizing power? Also, isn't a need to keep the vanguard of the revolution from centralizing power an acknowledgment of my central point, that those in power will do what they can to stay there? You are arguing that in order to suceed there must be a revolution but that those that lead the evolution must not be allowed to retain any power after the revolution is over, yet history and human nature dictate that once they lead and suceed, they will want to stay and you acknowledge that such is the case by arguing that those that lead the revolution must not be allowed to centralize power, how do you keep that from happening without another revolution?

Sorry, absent completely voluntary assent to the system, it cannot work. The minute someone is in charge of making it happen you have centralized power and people in power will want to stay there.

First, answer the question, how do you get people to want to join in, especially the well-to-do?

You don't get the capitalists to join in, that's utopian socialism. You force them, seizing from them the means of production.

This is nonsense, if the oppressed get power, they will keep it for themselves, please check your history book to see what has occurred everytime the "oppressed" were able to launch a succesful revolt.

When you have a revolution of the oppressed majority, it has every motive to seek egalitarian democracy, because that will lock it in power.

They said they did (oh, yeah, right, "they lied."). hmm, nationally owned means of production, collective farms, national railroads, a legislative body that represents the people (i.e. Politburo). Yep, you are right, Socialism had nothing to do with it.

Government ownership is not necessarily socialism.

It was people who took control keeping control for themselves (oh, wait, that proves my point doesn't it, sorry).

Except the "people" in question were not the proletariat, so it wasn't a truly socialist revolution at all.

That's the point though. People are very rarely, if ever, completely altruistic with no regard to self, but this manifesto assumes they will be. Again, if everyone voluntarily assents to the idea, fine, it has a chance of success, but not everyone will. This manifesto calls for the violent overthrow of those who will not voluntarily assent and the seizing of control by "the worker." I contend the minute the worker is in control, he becomes exactly what he revolted to get rid of. He becomes "more equal" and will work to keep control.

Yes, the people (not "people," the people) will control things. What a vile concept.

You keep on referencing Animal Farm. Note that in Animal Farm there was a centralized vanguard - the pigs - and that ultimately was the source of the revolution's undoing. Neither the revolution nor the post-revolutionary society was truly democratic, though until Napoleon seized power it followed electoral forms. You have to have a democratic revolution. That is perhaps the most important aspect.

How convient an excuse. What makes you so sure that others who advocate this system won't? How will you ensure there is no "power grab?"

We shouldn't trust any saviors; we should trust ourselves, and seize power for ourselves. That way, even if we are all in fact corrupt, it won't make any difference.

How do you keep the vanguard of the revolution from centralizing power? Also, isn't a need to keep the vanguard of the revolution from centralizing power an acknowledgment of my central point, that those in power will do what they can to stay there?

Yes, that is why the only people being put in power are the people themselves.

Bumping for relavence.

You don't get the capitalists to join in, that's utopian socialism. You force them, seizing from them the means of production.
And if they have guns and shoot back, what then? You pull out your superior firepower? Say you do so and you win, what is to keep your new army from seizing power and declaring a military dictatorship - Cuba all over again?

When you have a revolution of the oppressed majority, it has every motive to seek egalitarian democracy, because that will lock it in power.
Ah, so the goal is to create a ruling class? Kinda like the result in every other country that has tried it.

Government ownership is not necessarily socialism.
Quite true, but it is one of the hallmarks and until you have government ownership, you don't have socialism and seizing the means of production seems to be, above all else, a goal you advocate.

Except the "people" in question were not the proletariat, so it wasn't a truly socialist revolution at all.
And what will make your revolution different?

Yes, the people (not "people," the people) will control things. What a vile concept.
How will they control things? Total democracy=mob rule, end of the rights of the minority. Or will a few "elite" take control since "they know better?" If so, what is to keep them on the socialist "straight and narrow" since once they have the power, the "power corrupts paradigm" comes into play and they will advance themselves at the expense of the people.

You keep on referencing Animal Farm. Note that in Animal Farm there was a centralized vanguard - the pigs - and that ultimately was the source of the revolution's undoing. Neither the revolution nor the post-revolutionary society was truly democratic, though until Napoleon seized power it followed electoral forms. You have to have a democratic revolution. That is perhaps the most important aspect.
But a democratic revolution will still put a ruling group of people in charge who will seek to control everything for themselves eventually (that is a problem with the politicians in the U.S. today). In Animal Farm, the pigs grab for power was gradual starting with an election of sorts by the other animals. The vanguard seized control and became corrupted by it and forget what the revolution was all about and began to use the means of production to benefit themselves, how will you prevent this?

We shouldn't trust any saviors; we should trust ourselves, and seize power for ourselves. That way, even if we are all in fact corrupt, it won't make any difference.
Sure it will, it then becomes anarchy with everyman out for himself. You have to have a trust worthy leadership to make any government system work, but in socialism where the government has complete control over production and the means of production and is charge of distributing the wealth to the members of society it is even more important that those in charge be trustworthy since they control it all. At least in capatilism, control is not centralized and it is difficult for a "dangerous" amount of power to consolidate in one place.

Yes, that is why the only people being put in power are the people themselves.
But those people have leaders who will eventually act as the roman senate in Mel Brook's movie, "History of the World, Part I" and they will vote to "Fuck the Poor!"

And if they have guns and shoot back, what then? You pull out your superior firepower? Say you do so and you win, what is to keep your new army from seizing power and declaring a military dictatorship - Cuba all over again?

In order to win, your army probably will have solid popular support; it would have no reason to do so.

Ah, so the goal is to create a ruling class? Kinda like the result in every other country that has tried it.

Of the proletariat, yes. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" and all that.

Quite true, but it is one of the hallmarks and until you have government ownership, you don't have socialism and seizing the means of production seems to be, above all else, a goal you advocate.

Popular democratic control doesn't have to occur through the framework of the state.

And what will make your revolution different?

I would never support an undemocratic revolution.

How will they control things? Total democracy=mob rule, end of the rights of the minority. Or will a few "elite" take control since "they know better?" If so, what is to keep them on the socialist "straight and narrow" since once they have the power, the "power corrupts paradigm" comes into play and they will advance themselves at the expense of the people.

Total democracy is not equivalent to mob rule. In fact, democratic elements have the tendency to increase individual rights, not constrain them.

But a democratic revolution will still put a ruling group of people in charge who will seek to control everything for themselves eventually (that is a problem with the politicians in the U.S. today). In Animal Farm, the pigs grab for power was gradual starting with an election of sorts by the other animals. The vanguard seized control and became corrupted by it and forget what the revolution was all about and began to use the means of production to benefit themselves, how will you prevent this?

By making the post-revolutionary society as democratic and non-elitist as possible. You would rotate posts of authority to prevent the development of a ruling elite; you would enable immediate recall of delegates; you would maximize direct democracy and accountability. Instead of having freedom every four years to choose between a limited list of candidates, democracy would be constant.

Sure it will, it then becomes anarchy with everyman out for himself. You have to have a trust worthy leadership to make any government system work, but in socialism where the government has complete control over production and the means of production and is charge of distributing the wealth to the members of society it is even more important that those in charge be trustworthy since they control it all. At least in capatilism, control is not centralized and it is difficult for a "dangerous" amount of power to consolidate in one place.

A socialist society need not be centralized. An arrangement will be chosen, by the people themselves, to maximize popular participation in decision-making, and thus to minimize the corruption problem.

I'm back. I'll still be arguing for the MLP, but Neo-K can remain the spokesman.

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/7922/mlp20oy.jpg

Could you answer my questions, please, since they were ignored the last time?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10555876&postcount=13

Won't you always have to keep your weapons, to murder anyone who disagree's with your policies for one reason or another? There will always be someone who will disagree with you - if not a selfish capitalist than a man protecting his wife from people with guns running amok. So either you commit mass murder and kill anyone who dares disagree with you, or you keep your weapons forever.

We don't murder people for disagreeing with us. We would kill people who actively take a violent opposition to the socialist state. So while we wouldn't kill an old man who just doesn't agree with us, we would kill him if he took up a gun and started trying to reinstate capitalism through violent methods.


You also say the workers will be given guns. What if, for some odd reason, they don't want to start fighting and killing other people, possibly even their neighbours? Will you shoot them, too? Imprison them? Ignore them?

The revolution comes when there is an upshoot in class consciousness. Those who are willing to train and fight will be armed. Those who aren't won't. Simple as.

Where have you gotten this idea that we kill anybody who doesnt agree with us on every single point?

Meh. Fair enough. I'd still love to know, however, why you think that come this supposed 'Revolution' the working classes will spontaneously rise up, arm themselves and wipe out the other classes who resist/oppress them. What if they don't want to? For reasons of apathy or fear for their families or maybe they're actually supportive of the present system for some reason?

And anyway, let us suppose that you somehow manage to start this 'Revolution' and succeed. There will be hundreds of millions of deaths and who knows how much damage. Really, your revolution and the establishment of a 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' is no better than any of the massacres Capitalist companies do, or the US does when toppling a legitimate government and replacing them with a friendly puppet.

Meh. Fair enough. I'd still love to know, however, why you think that come this supposed 'Revolution' the working classes will spontaneously rise up, arm themselves and wipe out the other classes who resist/oppress them. What if they don't want to? For reasons of apathy or fear for their families or maybe they're actually supportive of the present system for some reason?
That is why we work now. We are working to build up support for our ideas within the working-class movement to win them over to our politics. This means that when another capitalist crisis occurs the vanguard can be formed and we can start showing how current events prove us to be right. We don't think every worker will join our side, but a revolution must launched with a majority of working-class support. This doesn't mean going out everyday and doing polls til we're sure we have over 51 percent of the proleteriat on our side, it means working to build up working class organisations until they have become powerful enough to overthrow capitalism, as that can only happen with majority support.

That may have sounded a bit rambled. Sorry.


And anyway, let us suppose that you somehow manage to start this 'Revolution' and succeed. There will be hundreds of millions of deaths and who knows how much damage. Really, your revolution and the establishment of a 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' is no better than any of the massacres Capitalist companies do, or the US does when toppling a legitimate government and replacing them with a friendly puppet.

How do you know there will be hundreds of millions of deaths? There probably won't actually be that many until the capitalists start a counter-attack.

Also, to your argument about us using violence making us as bad as them. No it doesn't. When we use violence in completely different circumstances to achieve different ends. Instead of using it to oppress the majority of the world, we are using it to liberate them and oppress the former ruling minority.

That is why we work now. We are working to build up support for our ideas within the working-class movement to win them over to our politics. This means that when another capitalist crisis occurs the vanguard can be formed and we can start showing how current events prove us to be right. We don't think every worker will join our side, but a revolution must launched with a majority of working-class support. This doesn't mean going out everyday and doing polls til we're sure we have over 51 percent of the proleteriat on our side, it means working to build up working class organisations until they have become powerful enough to overthrow capitalism, as that can only happen with majority support.

That may have sounded a bit rambled. Sorry.



How do you know there will be hundreds of millions of deaths? There probably won't actually be that many until the capitalists start a counter-attack.

Also, to your argument about us using violence making us as bad as them. No it doesn't. When we use violence in completely different circumstances to achieve different ends. Instead of using it to oppress the majority of the world, we are using it to liberate them and oppress the former ruling minority.

So you admit you don't want freedom of equality for all then? Merely the working classes? By oppressing the former ruling classes, you are no better than they are - you are merely swapping tyranny of the minority for tyranny of the majority.

So you admit you don't want freedom of equality for all then? Merely the working classes? By oppressing the former ruling classes, you are no better than they are - you are merely swapping tyranny of the minority for tyranny of the majority.

Yes. In the short term the former ruling class will need to be oppressed. But that is how any state is- one group oppresses the other. Only once we have eliminated the class system can we eliminate oppression.

Yes. In the short term the former ruling class will need to be oppressed. But that is how any state is- one group oppresses the other. Only once we have eliminated the class system can we eliminate oppression.

Then you're obviously no better than the US government who toppled legitimate democratic governments, and other capitalist actions. You will merely swap one group of oppressors for another. Your revolution is no better than the worse actions of Bush, Blair and all the others.

What's that old Russian saying? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" You simply swap one set of oppressors for another - tyranny of the minority for tyranny of the majority. Hardly equal or fair - and don't pretend you're any better than the capitalist oppressors that exist now.

Then you're obviously no better than the US government who toppled legitimate democratic governments, and other capitalist actions. You will merely swap one group of oppressors for another. Your revolution is no better than the worse actions of Bush, Blair and all the others.
What's backing this argument up? Sounds like empty rhetoric to me.

What's that old Russian saying? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" You simply swap one set of oppressors for another - tyranny of the minority for tyranny of the majority. Hardly equal or fair - and don't pretend you're any better than the capitalist oppressors that exist now.

We are better than the capitalists, and why? Because we don't plan to enslave humanity for own greed. We intend to set all humanity free, but this can only be done by abolishing the class system. How do we abolish the class system? By stopping the bourgeoisie from owning the means of production.

What's backing this argument up? Sounds like empty rhetoric to me.
I'd say your own statement that:
In the short term the former ruling class will need to be oppressed. But that is how any state is- one group oppresses the other. Only once we have eliminated the class system can we eliminate oppression.
backs it up. You adimt that your immediate goal is oppession of the former ruling class. If you intend to oppress people at all, you are no better than the people you claim you wish to take out of power is the point being made.

We are better than the capitalists, and why? Because we don't plan to enslave humanity for own greed. We intend to set all humanity free, but this can only be done by abolishing the class system. How do we abolish the class system? By stopping the bourgeoisie from owning the means of production.
You don't plan to enslave humanity for your own greed, but once the pigs are in power and have control of the means of production their inherent human nature to retain their power and their own selfish greed will kick in and we'll be back in the U.S.S.R. with an elite ruling class that maintains its own power by hook and by crook on the premise that as vanguards of the revolution they know what is best for the average person.

BTW, just why are you so opposed to people being wealthy? Don't you see that the possibility of gaining wealth/power is an incentive for people to strive to better themselves? If everyone is the same and it is not possible to get "a little bit more" then why try? Some clearly would for personal reasons, but many, many would not and society risks stagnation. Look where Capatilism has taken the U.S. in just over 200 years by encouraging innovation, self-reliance and a profit motive.

I like it but with one or two amendments:

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/143/revolutionaries5ni.jpg

Right then. Here we are. Once again the Revolutionaries have emerged. Here to stand up against the capitalist state and acknowledge that the only way it can be taken down is through force. A party for the proleteriat, undiluted by bourgeoisie ideals and practices prepared to stand up for what is right.


TRANSITIONAL PARTY
*We need to make clear that this party is not reformist. We do not think true socialism can be achieved under the current system of democracy which is based on personality rather than skill. This party only exists to gain transitional demands for the workers.
*While other left-wing parties have good intentions, we argue that their attempts to change the system from within can only end in failure as they do not understand the nature of the capitalist state
*The main objective of this party is to form a vanguard for the revolution while simultaneously managing to temporarily alleviate the huge suffering of the working classes.
*Please take this into account as the rest of the manifesto is dealing primarily with our objectives within parliament as opposed to post-revolutionary activities
once the revolution begins disband - the revolution continues or you end up becoming just another dictatorial one party state

ECONOMY
*Nationalise all major industries and all those which are essential to the survival of human beings
*The minimum wage is to be raised to the level that the EU has currently deemed acceptable of £7.50 an hour
*Increase taxes on the rich and lower them on the poor
*Hand more power over to the trade unions- allow secondary picketing, bring back closed shops, etc.
*Pensions, money given to asylum seekers and the dole to be increased to a basic standard of living (at the billionaires’ expense)
*Crackdown on corporate criminals and those that try to avoid corporate taxes. If the company/ owners threaten to leave the country, their ban accounts will be frozen.
good bit :D

PUBLIC SERVICES
*Abolish private hospitals and put all healthcare under government control
*Prohibit the private sale of medicine and instead have pharmacies run by the state
*Legalise euthanasia
*Allow abortion up until 20 weeks for any reason. After that period only if the baby poses a physical threat to the mother will abortion be permitted
*Free contraception for all
*The government must abolish private schools and allow anybody to use them
*Religious and gender segregated schooling must end
i'm pro-choice on the religious aspect here - if kids want to go to a school where they are surrounded by people of their own religion then they should be allowed but i agree that education in other religions/philosophies in a non-biased manner is completely necessary for informed choice.
*Religion/ philosophy must be taught to all children in a non-biased manner
*University education will be made free
*The army will be significantly reduced as we will stop sending troops to kill and die in imperialist wars
*The police must have the powers to stop and search without just cause based on your situation taken away
*Those police who are still unarmed will not be given guns as there are already enough cases of police brutality.
all monopolies of violence be eventually dissolved - and as soon as possible. any infringement of social codes can be dealt with by the local communities in which infringement takes place.
*prison reform - emphasis on rehabilitation and repayment to victims according to the wishes of the victims/families - death penalty not approved

DRUGS
*Cannabis, ecstasy, speed, LSD, magic mushrooms and any “soft drugs” to be legalised and sold by licensed proprietors to over 16’s.
*“Hard drugs” to be legalised and controlled by the state, but they can only be taken in licensed, state-operated centres.
*government funded research into making these as safe as possible without reducing pleasurable effects
*Rehab to be available, free of cost, to anybody who wants it
*All those in jail for dealing/possessing drugs to be freed

OTHER ISSUES
*Fascist, racist, Neo-Nazi and 'far-right' parties will be allowed. However, should they choose to march or plan political events, they will be offered no assistance from the state in any shape or form.
*Complete freedom of speech allowed to all.
*Outlaw the holding of second homes
*Open all borders and allow complete freedom of movement, in compliance with the UN charter of human rights
all good :D

backs it up. You adimt that your immediate goal is oppession of the former ruling class. If you intend to oppress people at all, you are no better than the people you claim you wish to take out of power is the point being made.

Every single state is a means of oppression of one class by another. The problem is that we cannot just destroy the state without destroying the system first.


You don't plan to enslave humanity for your own greed, but once the pigs are in power and have control of the means of production their inherent human nature to retain their power and their own selfish greed will kick in and we'll be back in the U.S.S.R. with an elite ruling class that maintains its own power by hook and by crook on the premise that as vanguards of the revolution they know what is best for the average person.

It won't go the same way as long as we do not isolate the working class from the means of production and political power as happened in Russia. As a Bolshevik I admit they did some things wrong which made it easy for Stalin and his cronies to take power of the country. Which is why we should call for electoral accountability.


BTW, just why are you so opposed to people being wealthy? Don't you see that the possibility of gaining wealth/power is an incentive for people to strive to better themselves? If everyone is the same and it is not possible to get "a little bit more" then why try? Some clearly would for personal reasons, but many, many would not and society risks stagnation. Look where Capatilism has taken the U.S. in just over 200 years by encouraging innovation, self-reliance and a profit motive.

I'm not opposed to people having money, I'm opposed to the exploitation through which some people make their money.

We aren't going to have everybody have the exact same amount of money under socialism- "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Yes capitalism has made huge advances, but what's to say that socialism will not yield the same, if not more, advances to the human race when we pool our abilities and resources?

once the revolution begins disband - the revolution continues or you end up becoming just another dictatorial one party state

Not with the right systems of responsiblity and accountability in place.


i'm pro-choice on the religious aspect here - if kids want to go to a school where they are surrounded by people of their own religion then they should be allowed but i agree that education in other religions/philosophies in a non-biased manner is completely necessary for informed choice.

The problem is explicitly religious schools will never give their students an unbiased, objective look at religion and philosophy. I do not want to see kids indoctrinated into a religion when they have not learnt about other possibilities. It especially worries me that so many primary schools are religious.


all monopolies of violence be eventually dissolved - and as soon as possible. any infringement of social codes can be dealt with by the local communities in which infringement takes place.
*prison reform - emphasis on rehabilitation and repayment to victims according to the wishes of the victims/families - death penalty not approved


second point I agree with. Not really sure what you mean by the first point, could you please elaborate?

*government funded research into making these as safe as possible without reducing pleasurable effects


agreed.

BUMPed for general awesomeness

me= all monopolies of violence be eventually dissolved - and as soon as possible. any infringement of social codes can be dealt with by the local communities in which infringement takes place.

ie no police, no military. as far as im concerned no individual or institution can legitimately hold a monopoly over the means of coercion/force/violence as the police/military/state that runs them have. thats like giving someone the liscence to kill - and they always do it without fail. social codes = laws but recognising laws cannot apply to every person in every situation in every location. not sure how it would actually work but i just don't like the way the law works.

Not with the right systems of responsiblity and accountability in place.

The problem is explicitly religious schools will never give their students an unbiased, objective look at religion and philosophy. I do not want to see kids indoctrinated into a religion when they have not learnt about other possibilities. It especially worries me that so many primary schools are religious.



if you're suggesting representatives with no power without the approval of the people and subject to immediate recall if they overstep the line then thats cool but you don't have to have a party or a state for that.

i went to what would now be called a evangelical christian primary school and i turned out an atheist so i dont think its too much of a problem, we did get taught about judaism for a term but only cuz a jewish kid started at the school and they taught us like it was just christianity without the jesus bits, which it is i suppose basically but not really. having said that i do think its a bit sick that evangelists prey on kids, teens and the insecure for recruits.

sorry if this post is a bit rambly - have'nt slept in about 36hrs (had an essay deadline :mad: ) going to bed now, working tonight, bah.

The MLP's getting absolutely shat on. I'd be lieing if I said that it shocked me.

The change of name was done because I felt we were excluding revolutionary leftists who may not be explicitly trotskyist.
Woohoo, entryism...

socialism is the capitalism that works and doesnt cause mass poverty

Communism is political perfection. We might never achieve it, but to work towards it is to work towards a better world for everyone.

Communism is political perfection. We might never achieve it, but to work towards it is to work towards a better world for everyone.
Especially those in charge of the movement who get to take control of everything. It will only work and be "perfection" when everyone is united behind and freely agrees to it. Base human selfishness will never permit this to take place.

socialism is the capitalism that works and doesnt cause mass poverty

Yeah, all those rich Chinese and Soviets can attest to that fact.

Yeah, all those rich Chinese and Soviets can attest to that fact.

As opposed to all those rich people in the third world.

Or for a matter of fact all those rich people who couldn't afford a bus out of New Orleans to avoid a hurricane.

Or those rich people without health insurance in America.

Or those rich people who live in gutters, hovels and homeless shelters all across the western world.

God bless capitalism.

Also, look what's happened to Russia since the re-introduction of capitalism. It's a glorious place to live now, eh?

Yo.


Im middle class.
Ashamedly.
Sure i donate 5% every year to the communist party
but it aint enough.
I love communism.
But like fuck am i going to be the first to give it all up.
Do you think id be one of the ones that gets shot?

I agree with all your policies except Drugs.

Im also a little hesitant with your "Second Home" thing.

What about commuters and long distance workers?

Someone who works in scotland half the year and wales the rest ect.

Otherwise a good party.

Look over the drugs.

Yo.


Im middle class.
Ashamedly.
Sure i donate 5% every year to the communist party
but it aint enough.
I love communism.
But like fuck am i going to be the first to give it all up.
Do you think id be one of the ones that gets shot?

Depends what role you decide to play in the revolution.


I agree with all your policies except Drugs.

What are of the drugs policy do you disagree with? What is your alternative/ amendments?


Im also a little hesitant with your "Second Home" thing.

What about commuters and long distance workers?

Someone who works in scotland half the year and wales the rest ect.


I see what you're saying, but to be quite frank with a socialist party in government we could help give this type of person a stabler job in one location so they wouldn't have to move about frequently.

Depends what role you decide to play in the revolution.


What are of the drugs policy do you disagree with? What is your alternative/ amendments?



I see what you're saying, but to be quite frank with a socialist party in government we could help give this type of person a stabler job in one location so they wouldn't have to move about frequently.


If the revolution was small i'd attend meetings and do propoganda and design ect.
If i thought it actually had a shot id be more... Active.


I disagree with drug legality totally. I would hold with your policies if there was massive re-education and education towards the bad things about drugs.
More than theree already is.
And regarding homes, point taken and accepted i withdraw my statement.

If the revolution was small i'd attend meetings and do propoganda and design ect.
If i thought it actually had a shot id be more... Active.


I disagree with drug legality totally. I would hold with your policies if there was massive re-education and education towards the bad things about drugs.
More than theree already is.
And regarding homes, point taken and accepted i withdraw my statement.

The problem with drugs is that recreational use will harm your health, but it is not necessarilly a bad thing. As long as people can stay in control of their habit, we should make sure that they are doing it in a safe manner. However when it becomes a problem we should strongly encourage people to enter into rehabilitation.

The problem with drugs is that recreational use will harm your health, but it is not necessarilly a bad thing. As long as people can stay in control of their habit, we should make sure that they are doing it in a safe manner. However when it becomes a problem we should strongly encourage people to enter into rehabilitation.

Fair enough, but at what point do you draw the line?
And is it a Rigid line?

Also, i dont agree with Capital Punishment, but heres a little Gem from Teutonic Germany.

We ignore them.

If someone commits a crime so hanus its deserving of a lynchin,
the government does nothing.
We send them outside.
And they no longer exist according to the police or government.

Guess what people are gonna do ;)

Fair enough, but at what point do you draw the line?
And is it a Rigid line?

I think we should have an intoxicants educational service to help people identify if they feel their drug habit is becoming too much.

There can't be a rigid line because everybody's different. Example, a friend of mine from school smokes weed basically everyday but manages to get all his work done and is a straight A student. Another friend smokes it every day, never does any work, has wrecked his memory, damaged relations with his family and has had major problems with his girlfriend about it. The latter should get some help while the former is in control of his habit.

Also, i dont agree with Capital Punishment, but heres a little Gem from Teutonic Germany.

We ignore them.

If someone commits a crime so hanus its deserving of a lynchin,
the government does nothing.
We send them outside.
And they no longer exist according to the police or government.

Guess what people are gonna do ;)

But that doesn't help anybody. It just ends with the destruction of a potentially productive member of society's life (not forgetting that this person might be innocent). We should focus on rehabilitating people and not punishing them.

DHomme, please, can we just merge parties or run a joint campaign or something? The conservative party has more votes than the UDCP... If you claim to support the will of the people then please consider joining parties because it is apparent that most NS communists support the UDCP over the MLP.

DHomme, please, can we just merge parties or run a joint campaign or something? The conservative party has more votes than the UDCP... If you claim to support the will of the people then please consider joining parties because it is apparent that most NS communists support the UDCP over the MLP.

To be quite frank I don't see the point. We know that on the vast majority of issues put before parliament we will vote the same way. To merge parties would be a waste of time and end up watering down our politics (and I somehow doubt it will change yours).

I see your point. I just thought it would be a huge moral victory if a communist party came in second. That would essentially secure a liberal grasp on the parliamenet, even though the moderate liberals (socialists) would have the most power. I think our real difference is on the revolution itself. If we amended our manifesto to say that communism must be applied to countries in ways the citizenry see fit, either reformist or revolutionary depending on the situation, then would you merge?

I see your point. I just thought it would be a huge moral victory if a communist party came in second. That would essentially secure a liberal grasp on the parliamenet, even though the moderate liberals (socialists) would have the most power. I think our real difference is on the revolution itself. If we amended our manifesto to say that communism must be applied to countries in ways the citizenry see fit, either reformist or revolutionary depending on the situation, then would you merge?

I don't think the membership of your party would be willing to see the inclusion of revolutionary possiblities be placed in your manifesto though. Perhaps next election or even during the next session of parliament we can work on the idea of a united front with specific goals we want to achieve.

I posted the compromise in the UDCP forum, there hasn't been a reply, but would you consider an immediate merge if it was agreed to?

I posted the compromise in the UDCP forum, there hasn't been a reply, but would you consider an immediate merge if it was agreed to?

A merge no but a united front yes.

By United Front do you mean all communist votes would be to one entity, or agreement on proposals in a more cooperative manner?

By United Front do you mean all communist votes would be to one entity, or agreement on proposals in a more cooperative manner?

A merger implies that both parties become one. A united front implies that we are still two parties, but we are working together under a common banner. We still exist as two different groups but electorally we are one entity. This front could have it's own specific list of policies that we want pursued in parliament, thus making us more effective in these specific areas. We would still be free to be critical of the other group and even the direction of the front.

I would agree to that, I'm sure many of my Comrades in the UDCP would too. It would be like a single party with two major factions, retaining their separate policies and ideas. An electoral coalition would probablly secure us as the 2nd most powerful faction. I'm sure my Comrades at the UDCP will aprreciate the MLP's cooperation on the issue of electoral unity.

DHomme, I'll start working on a campaign.

You realize the plan you have would ultimately destroy the economy and send the nation into a state of anarchy correct?

You realize the plan you have would ultimately destroy the economy and send the nation into a state of anarchy correct?

Yes, yes I do.

Im going to whore myself to this party as a propoganda dude for now.
Next election im starting my own party, or would like changed in this one.(Not happening i assume)

Your party is the closest ideology to mine.

Don't fracture the movement even more Comrade.

Don't fracture the movement even more Comrade.

Agreed.
I think we should unify with all left wing parties and then put all there policies up for vote.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473815

Greetings Camerads,

Where can I see the results for previous elections, preferably for all parties?

By United Front do you mean all communist votes would be to one entity, or agreement on proposals in a more cooperative manner?

Would this be a Front Populaire (avec des reformistes) or a Front "Revolutionnaire"?

Would this be a Front Popular (avec des reformistes) or a Front "Revolutionnaire"?
Uniting with other socialists and pro-working class forces is a united front. We will still argue for revolutionary politics within the front and in our party though.

This be one militant BUMP

I know it's a "united front", but I was just asking if we would unite with reformits or not.

It's not as if I called it a Phalange or a Compromis.

I know it's a "united front", but I was just asking if we would unite with reformits or not.

It's not as if I called it a Phalange or a Compromis.

Sorry, I musta misunderstood. Yes, it is with a reformist party. There's an anarchist pary as well that might join if we can convince it to steer away from anarcho-capitalist. There's also a social-democrat party which may veer to the left and join us.

You're arguing against the authoritarian interpretation of Leninism, not against socialism.

Do you mean that Lenin's interpretation of socialism or other people's interpretation of Lenin?

Do you mean that Lenin's interpretation of socialism or other people's interpretation of Lenin?

I said the "authoritarian interpretation of Leninism," and that's what I meant. I never knew Lenin. I cannot be sure what his exact ideology was.

Militant leftist doesn't sound right...

Militant leftist doesn't sound right...

its sounds left.

Oh, and UCF thread is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474291)

(bump)
Im helping out :D

In eight pages, this has probably been said before, but, in all honesty, I didn't read those pages.

Most everything proposed here is a good idea separately (I'm still ambivalent about the unarmed police force bit) but it cannot happen all together. With so many things governmentally funded, it'd require a VERY high flat tax; and that wouldn't make anyone happy. Free education alone would become an immense monetary burden; adding the rest would put most of the nation into poverty.

This party's ideas are about as realistic as communism--both great ideas on paper, but will never happen in the real world.



And I'm all for the legalization of marijuana, but I have a lot of trouble imagining that legalizing hard drugs could end well.




P.S. *BUMP*

has anyone noticed that the extremes of the political spectrum seem to idolise tyrants?

National front, et al - Hitler
Communists (some), Socialists et al - Lennin and Trotsky.

I was reading an blog on a socialist website condeming an american militia for using Hitler as its 'poster boy', when they themselves had a big pic of trotsky the guy who instigated the red terror in russia, closed down papers which didnt talk the party line, had the papers executives executed without trial and closed the democratically elected constituent assembly because the bolshevics didnt win a majority. He is in the top 5 of the soviet leaders for numbers of people killed by his orders. Seems odd to condem Hitler for killing people in the name of his sick ideology but then herald another tyrant because he happened to say some things that people agree with. Surely when the deaths of millions are concerned they trump an ideology expressed - surely he should be made an example of by the left to ensure that the memories of the civilians murdered in the name of workers solidarity are not forgotten or dishonoured.

I am for socialism but i find it disgusting to herald a man that did so much evil in its name. And lennin was hardly a democrat or a torlerant or a protector of freedom of expression so why idolise them for them? Lennin insodentally was the man who first gave the order to set up the goulags after the october revolution.

Revolutions only work well when you have majority support, and when you don't slaughter everyone in your path.

Who are these "workers" you say you are arming to help fight in the revolution?

Most of the middle class, who are the majority, are going to be opposing you in this "revolution", whether they are plain liberals, centrists, or conservatives. The only support you'll get is from ultra-radicals.

Sorry, I musta misunderstood. Yes, it is with a reformist party. There's an anarchist pary as well that might join if we can convince it to steer away from anarcho-capitalist. There's also a social-democrat party which may veer to the left and join us.
There's an anarchist PARTY? Sounds wrong to me.

I don't like parties, to be honest (apart from the ones with alcohol and dancin and hot ladies and the like). To me, they lead to an elite, and that leads to the same kind of abuses we saw in Stalinist Russia and the like. I don't trust a party-sized group enough to believe they will always hand over power (a small group of people who Believe with a capital B, or a large group of people where everyone has to fit in, yes, but not a group who control everything). I think that the party can only work if EVERYONE is in it, or nigh on everyone, and everyone has as much say as the leaders.

I agree wholeheartedly with your goals, though (including unarmed police - it works well in Britain and Ireland). You have my support, if not my membership.