NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you kidding? Tell me you're kidding.

Yah, it did. I just donated to Dennis Kucinich.

Are you kidding? Tell me you're kidding.

I'm kidding...

...



...
..


..

NOT!

The forum-burp has confused me...

It's not even over yet....

American politics does not satisfy me, those on the Democrat are socially liberal and fiscally left, and those on the Republican are socially authoritarian and fiscally right. Why can't we have an all-around authoritarian candidate? I am all for the 'Totalitarian Statist Party'.

American politics does not satisfy me, those on the Democrat are socially liberal and fiscally left, and those on the Republican are socially authoritarian and fiscally right. Why can't we have an all-around authoritarian candidate? I am all for the 'Totalitarian Statist Party'.
Why would people elect a totalitarian candidate? Not only does it have negative connotations, but electing someone who exerts total control over your life seems a little contradictory, at least after the first time he's elected.

I thank you for donating to Kucinich. I'm not sure why, but I really like the man.

Why can't we have an all-around authoritarian candidate?

...republicans?

...republicans?

Something tells me that he wants more authoritarian implementation of economic equality, not opposing civil rights.

American politics does not satisfy me, those on the Democrat are socially liberal and fiscally left, and those on the Republican are socially authoritarian and fiscally right. Why can't we have an all-around authoritarian candidate? I am all for the 'Totalitarian Party'.

Bwahaha.

Democrats are socially liberal? Let me go laugh for awhile.


Democrats, in comparison to real politics are pretty much righties, leaning moderate. A few, like Kucinich are actually a little left of the middle, but they are at no point left.

The political compass thing had an interesting chart of the candidate on the political spectrum

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007

Something tells me that he wants more authoritarian implementation of economic equality, not opposing civil rights.
Both actually, 'private' liberty breeds love of life and property, both are contrary to the need of the state for self-sacrifice.

Both actually, 'private' liberty breeds love of life and property, both are contrary to the need of the state for self-sacrifice.

Come back when you've sacrificed your life. If you can. Hypocrite.

Both actually, 'private' liberty breeds love of life and property, both are contrary to the need of the state for self-sacrifice.

And the problem is?

Both actually, 'private' liberty breeds love of life and property, both are contrary to the need of the state for self-sacrifice.

Well then. Good luck with that.

And the problem is?

Well, it's clear: if you don't sacrifice for the state, the leaders in power can't eat their $5,000 gourmet meals with bottles of fine wine imported from those pesky free countries or drive around their Rolls-Royce limousines between their palatial estates on the taxpayer's dime. Come on, Trollgaard, you should know this! Otherwise, you're obviously a capitalist subversive and should be promptly deported to the gulag to be worked to death. Only the leaders are allowed to love property and wealth.

You see, those people are the natural elite, and you deserve to have a shitty job, cramped apartment, and bare shelves at the store so that they can live in the luxury they deserve.

Well, it's clear: if you don't sacrifice for the state, the leaders in power can't eat their $5,000 gourmet meals with bottles of fine wine imported from those pesky free countries or drive around their Rolls-Royce limousines between their palatial estates on the taxpayer's dime. Come on, Trollgaard, you should know this! Otherwise, you're obviously a capitalist subversive and should be promptly deported to the gulag to be worked to death. Only the leaders are allowed to love property and wealth.

You see, those people are the natural elite, and you deserve to have a shitty job, cramped apartment, and bare shelves at the store so that they can live in the luxury they deserve.

I'm sorry! I forgot! I'll work really hard in the gulag, I promise, boss!
:p

You see, those people are the natural elite, and you deserve to have a shitty job, cramped apartment, and bare shelves at the store so that they can live in the luxury they deserve.

Why does this sound familiar?

Why does this sound familiar?

Because there really is no difference between the excesses of statism and libertarianism (for lack of better terms). Systems built on oppression are all ultimately the same, even if their external appearance has a different form of propaganda attached to it.

Because there really is no difference between the excesses of statism and libertarianism (for lack of better terms). Systems built on oppression are all ultimately the same, even if their external appearance has a different form of propaganda attached to it.

Indeed. Left wing, right wing, they taste the same to me.

Systems built on oppression are all ultimately the same.

Yeah, that's what I've always said.

But then people keep insisting to me that the rich and powerful deserve it all, and the rest of us, well... if we work at a shitty job for shitty pay, it's probably because we deserve it.

Ironically enough, the same people claim to loathe Eureka Australis's ideology, and to be the most committed defenders of individual liberty, life, and property--because "liberty" means choice of master, "life" means you can be only be killed indirectly, and "property" means you can rule others.

Strange world.

Indeed. Left wing, right wing, they taste the same to me.

Whatever leftist credentials EA may originally have had have long since been annihilated by his open fascist sympathies.

American politics does not satisfy me, those on the Democrat are socially liberal and fiscally left, and those on the Republican are socially authoritarian and fiscally right. Why can't we have an all-around authoritarian candidate? I am all for the 'Totalitarian Statist Party'.
The Republicans are "fiscally right"? For the last 7 years they haven't been.

http://www.uuforum.org/Images/deficit.gif

The Republicans are "fiscally right"? For the last 7 years they haven't been.

Assuming "right" is meant in its ideological sense, the Republicans have absolutely been fiscally right... tax giveaways to the rich, budget cuts for the poor, and massive spending on killing people abroad.

The fact that they're willing to use deficit spending to do it just shows their commitment.

But that hardly ruins his leftist credentials,

Plain old authoritarianism doesn't.

Advancing authoritarianism to the exclusion of everything else does.

any more than libertarianism ruins a person's capitalist credentials.

Absolutely it does. Capitalism is domination.

The Republicans are "fiscally right"? For the last 7 years they haven't been.

how not?

Whatever leftist credentials EA may originally have had have long since been annihilated by his open fascist sympathies.

I have noticed a certain rise in the emphasis on authoritarianism by the artist formerly known as AP. But that hardly ruins his leftist credentials, any more than libertarianism ruins a person's capitalist credentials.

You see, those people are the natural elite, and you deserve to have a shitty job, cramped apartment, and bare shelves at the store so that they can live in the luxury they deserve.
Why does this sound familiar?

Because you just finished reading 1984.

Ironic that Vetalia was talking about the directors of fortune 500 hundred compaines and democratically elected (or so they say) politicians in capitalistic societies, no?

how not?
You don't know if you are in Michigan, so how can I explain it to you? :D

Did you see the graph of the deficits?

He still advocates economic equality...

He advocates the vanguard party brutally imposing its social order upon society, tolerating no dissent or resistance.

That's transparently a class system (and therefore anti-leftist), and unlike Lenin he is increasingly unwilling to even recognize this problem.

Plain old authoritarianism doesn't.

Advancing authoritarianism to the exclusion of everything else does.

He still advocates economic equality...

Absolutely it does. Capitalism is domination.

Glad to see you're holding strong to those leftist credentials.

Because you just finished reading 1984.

Actually, no.

Though Animal Farm has been running through my head in this thread. People forget--if the pigs are no different from the men, then it must also be true that the men are no different from the pigs.

Ironic that Vetalia was talking about the directors of fortune 500 hundred compaines and democratically elected (or so they say) politicians in capitalistic societies, no?

If I read him right, I don't think he was, rather about Stalinism.

So what is "Dr. man of the peoples" net worth? I can only find a couple references his assets are in the millions. What was interesting was one blurb saying for all his pessimistic economic talk; his investments are mainly gold,sliver and real estate.

Does any of this have anything to do with Denny?

I'll admit that I disagree with 90% of his stuff, but he's the least annoying of the bunch so he deserves a fair go at the presidency.

He advocates the vanguard party brutally imposing its social order upon society, tolerating no dissent or resistance.

That's transparently a class system (and therefore anti-leftist), and unlike Lenin he is increasingly unwilling to even recognize this problem.

You're right that I do advocate a transitional vanguard 'defense of the Revolution' stage, a Jacobin stage if you will, but eventually I advocate the abolition of 'privacy' which is cause of all humanities suffering. Privacy encouraging secrecy, crime, greed and putting individuality above the patriotic good of the nation.

Did you see the graph of the deficits?

yes. what does that have to do with right-wing economics?

I'll admit that I disagree with 90% of his stuff, but he's the least annoying of the bunch so he deserves a fair go at the presidency.

He annoys me now. I backed him in '04, but he's gotten boring.

There's only so long you can sympathize with an obviously hopeless candidate advancing a policy platform with little relation to reality.

the patriotic good of the nation.

Ah, social chauvinism.

Not leftist.

He advocates the vanguard party brutally imposing its social order upon society, tolerating no dissent or resistance.

That's transparently a class system (and therefore anti-leftist), and unlike Lenin he is increasingly unwilling to even recognize this problem.

Well Lenin seemed to have a very developmental notion of communism. He knew that if it were to arise, it would come "from the womb of capitalism" and would retain for a time some characteristics of the bourgeoisie society from which it was born, and only rid itself of them later.

Perhaps EA holds a developmental view as well, one in which a dictatorship of the proletariat is the beginning of a classless society and not the final goal. I don't really know his views on that topic well enough to say.

Well Lenin seemed to have a very developmental notion of communism. He knew that if it were to arise, it would come "from the womb of capitalism" and would retain for a time some characteristics of the bourgeoisie society from which it was born, and only rid itself of them later.

Perhaps EA holds a developmental view as well, one in which a dictatorship of the proletariat is the beginning of a classless society and not the final goal. I don't really know his views on that topic well enough to say.
Well of course in the socialist transition to communism contradictions still exist in society - and therefore reactionary tendencies exist, Mao wrote quite well on this and his fears well exactly realized by the revisionist forces that took over after his death. So because of this, in this phase a vanguard is needed to defend the revolution in the name of popular sovereignty. The working class of course must establish their own dictatorship, just as the upper class did in previous times, and the working class must further the mandate to communism. I still though find it hard to understand why NSGers find political violence somehow bad, violence is a means to an end, you shouldn't judge a revolution by the amount of blood it spills.

Well of course in the socialist transition to communism contradictions still exist in society - and therefore reactionary tendencies exist, Mao wrote quite well on this and his fears well exactly realized by the revisionist forces that took over after his death. So because of this, in this phase a vanguard is needed to defend the revolution in the name of popular sovereignty. The working class of course must establish their own dictatorship, just as the upper class did in previous times, and the working class must further the mandate to communism. I still though find it hard to understand why NSGers find political violence somehow bad, violence is a means to an end, you shouldn't judge a revolution by the amount of blood it spills.

I'll just leave you with a few words from Mohandas K. Gandhi. Perhaps they will help you understand why non-violence strikes many of us as more admirable than violence.

"If by using violence I force the Government to repeal the law, I am employing what may be termed body-force. If I do not obey the law and accept penalty for its breach, I use soul-force. It involves sacrifice of self.

Everybody admits that sacrifice of self is better than sacrifice of others."

I'll just leave you with a few words from Mohandas K. Gandhi. Perhaps they will help you understand why non-violence strikes many of us as more admirable than violence.

"If by using violence I force the Government to repeal the law, I am employing what may be termed body-force. If I do not obey the law and accept penalty for its breach, I use soul-force. It involves sacrifice of self.

Everybody admits that sacrifice of self is better than sacrifice of others."
'Terror without virtue is disastrous, but virtue without Terror is powerless' - Robespierre
It's easier to do nothing to further you're ideals, and hide behind the curtains of pacifism and achieve nothing, it takes much more courage to take the initiative and impose your objective the only way that revolutionary ideals can ever come to power - violence. Only when all reactionaries loose their heads can virtue be established in society.

It's interesting to me how your talk of self-sacrifice (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13251156&postcount=11) is replaced by the advocacy of the sacrifice of others when the others are people whom you don't like.

"Do as I say, not as I do."

Only when all reactionaries loose their heads can virtue be established in society.

Including yourself?

'Terror without virtue is disastrous, but virtue without Terror is powerless' - Robespierre
It's easier to do nothing to further you're ideals, and hide behind the curtains of pacifism and achieve nothing, it takes much more courage to take the initiative and impose your objective the only way that revolutionary ideals can ever come to power - violence. Only when all reactionaries loose their heads can virtue be established in society.

It's interesting to me how your talk of self-sacrifice (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13251156&postcount=11) is replaced by the advocacy of the sacrifice of others when the others are people whom you don't like.

If I read him right, I don't think he was, rather about Stalinism.

Yes, although it's true the same argument is entirely applicable to a capitalist model where business has a far too close, far too friendly relationship with the authoritarian government. The only difference is that the gulags are privatized.