Originality Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Teimuraz Sakirovadze
Minister of Peace
Post #20744
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 1304
Total Words: 126,566
Average words per post: 97.06
PoliMatch: n/a
|
Posted: Mon 2006-03-27 09:14
|
 |
| Politics: Technocratic Syndicalist |
Country: New World Order |
|
| Kirovism |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Foreword-
To the effect of a revolution some say it's merely impossible to do so, even in a country like this. I'll be frank, I was originally never one for being a revolutionary. I believed that socialism could come about much like Engels did back in the 19th century. And as unfortunate as it may seem, I do not believe very often that people are willing to make a certain sacifice, namely a material one. It is very hard to determine the pulse of this country and its people, because of the many degrees of discontent with the current administration -- and of the blind acceptance of the administration by others.
As unsympathetic as it may sound, my faith in the "people's will" is waning. There is foment on both sides, and in a way a revolution is being fought - not for socialism, with ballots, not for communism, with blood - but with change in mind.
It is hard to even accept the idea that we, in the land of the blind - are led by the one-eyed king. It is anathema to even talk of a revolution of any sort, even still today.
The only revolution I want is one that does not involve blood, weapons or lost lives of those we care about, whomever we care about.
But I was requested by fellow comrade Drzhen to "include a rant", as he put it - up for whatever praise/scrutiny. So I will attempt to get to that, without leaving a massive hole in my information.
*** Kirovism, or a blatant attempt at propaganda. *** 
Alright.... 
This is a purely eclectic programme I have developed which may be implemented depending upon certain circumstances in any country. This has required some substantial thought, because of the various adaptations I have considered.
First, let's to Marx. His entire program is to say the least - deplorable. A dictatorship of the proletarit usually end up to be a name for undisguised authoritarian leadership which usually disregards general will in its entirety. The proletariat can only hope to go no further than any other proletariat in this situation: nowhere. So, away with that idea.
Second, class warfare. This is a bit of an ambiguous concept, as both proletariat and bourgeois are doing the same thing (in a Communist sense), simply warring with each other. This will not necessarily figure in any context.
Third - the revolution phase. Well...
Being a "class-war socialist" (how I adore that term) I am neither for nor against revolution, but I am against it on certain grounds. I don't beleive a revolution is justifiable if the workers are merely mistreated, it must be more than that. The current government in power (this can be anywhere) must meet certain criterion:
One. It must be demonstrably incapable of handling its affairs, show corruption to an extreme level or be in no great favor to commit domestic tranquility.
Two. It has no interest of or for the people, merely treating them as a quiet constituency which is controlled by secret police and writs of attainder. Its leaders must demonstrate indirectly that they are exactly this and nothing else, to say simply - oppressed in this manner.
Three. Among the people there is too much ill will either fomented by gangs of marauders or by religious and ethnic differences exacerbated by leaders who wish something of an extreme sort, that of cleansing or something horrible.
In this case, if all three criterion are fulfilled, then in that country there should be a revolution. As to what revolution I can only say it will include blood and strife. I can only hope it will not come to that; loss of life is tragic.
***
Now, to the other side: a "peaceful" revolution.
There are the same criterion as above, but with certain degrees:
A. It is capable to an extent, but is hampered by internal efforts to bring about change.
B. It shares an interest for the people, but not to the extent that people would like to have, perhaps for reasons of domestic or international affairs.
C. There are some small groups that tend to exacerbate certain feelings, with no intention of being tied to the government or any other affiliation, but for their own gain.
Arriving at this it is possible to change certain elements without having to overthrow a government. But the road may be long for those who want a cultural and social revolution.
***
It is my suggestion that if the former decision is arrived at by the people as a majority then it should be carried out to its fullest extent doing only what is necessary up until its gains are realized; then and only then should it repair and promote its functions, avoiding fundamental errors that could in time lead to a more repressive government than before.
It is my intention to show how when the people have achieved their revolutionary goals to run the government in a fashion simliar to that of a libertarian state, so to say.
-- The new government, taking power only from the consent of the governed as natural social contract would indicate, is to make a new constitution that will be markedly more individual oriented and group oriented.
-- Disregarding those inefficient rules that contributed to the original downfall of the old government and placing a liberal yet stringent, effective document that will protect the individual and group rights [of which I will assume a more revised version of our Constitution should be a framework for this] while preserving some sense of unity and a semblance of local, state and national government that will be efficient without resorting to bureaucracy.
-- Emphasis must be placed upon growth, and capitalism, while regarded as a corruptive element should not be discouraged as it would be vital to an economy which is restarting and regrowing. After that then it up to the constituency to implement whatever plans they have for their economy. But the formations of corporations and conglomerates, in history - have done much more harm than good. It would not be wise to form these, but to promote the growth of cooperatives amongst states and groups to enrich the gains of the individual. This should only be promoted on a voluntary basis.
-- There should be no implementation of censorship of any sort. There should be a free and uninterrupted flow of information, while protecting individual privacy overall. What people do on their own with whatever or whomever they choose shall not be of any concern to the government. Freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly shall be promoted and maintained as well as that of the rest of the Bill of Rights. The new government should not make laws contrary to these principles.
-- I would also add that in the sense of deriving funds for the government, I would assess Drzhen's idea of a flat tax, although I am partial to a progressive tax for those who make a certain percentage above that of normal income. [QED]
-- The military at the time of renewal should not be capable of a coup; but should be capable for national defense after the revolution is won. The military should be kept within range of government sight; let the military take an inch, and they will take a mile instead.
Martial law should be revised to reflect changes in government and council policy.
-- Councils should be formed on every level, and constructive criticism of work and government should be a basic part of the functions of every council. These councils should also maintain public facilities and uphold a sense of unity.
-- I cannot stress this any more than I have to. The church and the state shall remain seperate by every means. There will be no "In God We Trust", no "one nation, under God". It is the obligation of every citizen to exclude from the state any notion of being divinely protected by an ethereal being or promoting holy principles which do not belong in a non-secular organization.
-- The new government should have a limited interest insofar as individual health. It should begin to make available free inoculations, shots and institute a national plan of health that should not be a burden to taxpayers. The system should be available to anyone and everyone and not be a strain in the sense of waiting lines and lists. It should also go as far as to build hospitals and train staff and nurses. It should as well implement alternative techniques for healing in its plans.
-- Schools, universities, colleges and seminaries are to be as well-funded and well-maintained with the highest quality of learning imaginable, while being able to educate to the fullest extent on any subject.
-- It is up to local and state councils and planning committees to build roads, interestates and other structures that the cities and states can use.
-- Discrimination, although a social issue, should be focused on and eradicated, as racism and sexism are to be considered anathema to a refined social order. Those with disabilities (handicapped people, or as George Carlin put it - "cripples") should be entitled to the same rights as those without "cripple"-ness.
-- Retirement and financial security are to be in the hands of the government.
***
The picture is to be painted with brighter colors, so to say.
This should all be considered within a socialist framework and thought.
I would also like to know if I have left anything out involuntarily. I intend to answer many more questions concerning this theoretical enhancement.
-Dzhukarin.
_________________
27-X-90 - 25-XI-08
ДА ЗДРАВСТВУЕТ НАШЕГО КИРОВА!
Last edited by Teimuraz Sakirovadze on Sat 2007-02-03 19:54; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
James
Inner Party Leader
Post #20774
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1013
Total Words: 206,587
Average words per post: 203.94
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
walls
Committee Member
Post #20781
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 430
Total Words: 38,497
Average words per post: 89.53
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-03-28 01:51
|
|
| Politics: Whatever Hollywood tells me to believe |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
O'Brien: Why don't you understand that the proletariats will never rebel? Why must you be so stubborn? goes on to break Dzhukarin's fingers.
Me: scrambles for the breadcrumbs tossed down to him by his new master. Sieg Heil! Thank you for blowing up my farm!
_________________
satan reads the bible that god is the object of sacrifice. - Parrotse
In Soviet Russia, you die for the sins of Jesus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Teimuraz Sakirovadze
Minister of Peace
Post #20785
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 1304
Total Words: 126,566
Average words per post: 97.06
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-03-28 02:45
|
|
| Politics: Workers Party |
Country: United States of Oppression |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Why is it that whenever I throw caution to the wind (as I am somewhat prone to doing) I am usually bitten by the dogs of the "conservative spectrum"?
Perhaps I should make it a little clearer and add in a clause to this.
[addenda]
Despite the few shortcomings mentioned I can only intend to put forth a program that will in the case of social security and retirement on partial hands of both government and individual. (This will be looked at further, when my faculties return better than before.)
And might I note that you are still supposed to save money, even when retiring. It is estimated that at least a million dollars must be saved to live rather comfortably and not be used beforehand. This does exclude other savings, for emergencies and such.
Apparently you have seemed to skim over parts of the original program, namely:
-- "Disregarding those inefficient rules that contributed to the original downfall of the old government and placing a liberal yet stringent, effective document that will protect the individual and group rights [of which I will assume a more revised version of our Constitution should be a framework for this] while preserving some sense of unity and a semblance of local, state and national government that will be efficient without resorting to bureaucracy. "
This also will go further as to revise a uniform law (how I despise and loathe this term, as it has been tampered indiscriminately) that will be second only to the constitution.
And as far as the factors of racism and discrimination, although a pitiful thing to see, it must somehow be toned down. This cannot be achieved by getting into people's heads. That notion you brought up is pure nonsense, but then again my language, although expanded, becomes more of a taxing pain. So for now we will clarify it later on.
-- O'Brien: Why don't you understand that the proletariats will never rebel? Why must you be so stubborn? goes on to break Dzhukarin's fingers.
^ Oh, your humor, it maketh my belly laugh. And fart.
The proletariats themselves cannot revolt. It take a relation between lower-middle class, working-class and working-poor people to make them aware. And as for your "Party", not everyone is capable of blind obedience and unwavering faith. I leave that to religion and bureacracy, my eternal thorns-in-the-side.
_________________
27-X-90 - 25-XI-08
ДА ЗДРАВСТВУЕТ НАШЕГО КИРОВА! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #20809
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
  
    
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-03-28 09:32
|
|
| Politics: Communist |
Country: Titan |
|
| Re: "Dzhukarinism" / Scrutinization and Modificati |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
Foreword-
To the effect of a revolution some say it's merely impossible to do so, even in a country like this. I'll be frank, I was originally never one for being a revolutionary. I believed that socialism could come about much like Engels did back in the 19th century. And as unfortunate as it may seem, I do not believe very often that people are willing to make a certain sacifice, namely a material one. It is very hard to determine the pulse of this country and its people, because of the many degrees of discontent with the current administration -- and of the blind acceptance of the administration by others.
As unsympathetic as it may sound, my faith in the "people's will" is waning. There is foment on both sides, and in a way a revolution is being fought - not for socialism, with ballots, not for communism, with blood - but with change in mind.
It is hard to even accept the idea that we, in the land of the blind - are led by the one-eyed king. It is anathema to even talk of a revolution of any sort, even still today.
The only revolution I want is one that does not involve blood, weapons or lost lives of those we care about, whomever we care about.
But I was requested by fellow comrade Drzhen to "include a rant", as he put it - up for whatever praise/scrutiny. So I will attempt to get to that, without leaving a massive hole in my information. |
Though we very lightly talked about our feelings on revolution, I don't mean to say that revolutions are impossible. Revolutions happen, the problem is, making the revolution create the ideal society that the people revolting are trying to achieve. Back in the 19th century, communist revolution was a whole lot more viable; exploitation in the Western world was harsher than today. Child labor, few worker's rights, not every female citizen could vote in their respective countries, etc. People feel discontent with this administration because of how ineptly it has been administered. Americans haven't trusted their goverment for many decades, basically, for most, starting with the Kennedy assassination. It was one failure and disappointment after another, starting from that moment on. That's simplifying, but who gives a shit.
Mine wanes too. Though I consider myself a "communist", I'm not a Marxist, or an Englesist, or a Maoist, Leninist, etc; I'm my own brand. But, even though I believe in welfare programs, and in equalization of wealth, I don't love the people as an immortal proletariat class. Regular people are dull, dimwitted, and worthless human beings. They're stupid sheep who slave their lives away in financial woes and general hardship. For most people, life really sucks. But, I consider that a problem to be with our capitalist "Ignore the unfortunate people" attitude. Education can educate the people; we spend trillions of dollars making bombs and running around involving ourselves across this world. It's wasted money that could, instead, make our third-world education system first-world.
Even though I consider Bush a warcriminal, Republicans theocratic totalitarianists, and despise our Armed troops, if a violent revolution was necessary for preserving democracy in this nation, then it would have to happen. I don't think communist revolution is possible. It seems to me that the only possible way to make communism a reality is through socialist reform. Through reform, it goes through the democratic channels, minimizing loss of life, industry, and infrastructure than a violent civil war would. Even though Russia was a mess, it was an even worse mess following the Red Civil War, and it fell into totalitarian dictatorship.
Thanks, comrade, although that term is rather too Orwellianesque, especially on this forum. I prefer "citizen". It's much more
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
*** Dzhukarinism, or a blatant attempt at propaganda. ***
Alright....
This is a purely eclectic programme I have developed which may be implemented depending upon certain circumstances in any country. This has required some substantial thought, because of the various adaptations I have considered.
First, let's to Marx. His entire program is to say the least - deplorable. A dictatorship of the proletarit usually end up to be a name for undisguised authoritarian leadership which usually disregards general will in its entirety. The proletariat can only hope to go no further than any other proletariat in this situation: nowhere. So, away with that idea.
Second, class warfare. This is a bit of an ambiguous concept, as both proletariat and bourgeois are doing the same thing (in a Communist sense), simply warring with each other. This will not necessarily figure in any context. |
Revolutions in the name of the proletariat seem to always lead to dictatorship or totalitarianism. Agreed.
I don't really understand what you mean by class warfare; since you don't seem to actually believe in violent class warfare, what do you mean, natural economic competition?
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
Third - the revolution phase. Well...
Being a "class-war socialist" (how I adore that term) I am neither for nor against revolution, but I am against it on certain grounds. I don't beleive a revolution is justifiable if the workers are merely mistreated, it must be more than that. The current government in power (this can be anywhere) must meet certain criterion:
One. It must be demonstrably incapable of handling its affairs, show corruption to an extreme level or be in no great favor to commit domestic tranquility.
Two. It has no interest of or for the people, merely treating them as a quiet constituency which is controlled by secret police and writs of attainder. Its leaders must demonstrate indirectly that they are exactly this and nothing else, to say simply - oppressed in this manner.
Three. Among the people there is too much ill will either fomented by gangs of marauders or by religious and ethnic differences exacerbated by leaders who wish something of an extreme sort, that of cleansing or something horrible.
In this case, if all three criterion are fulfilled, then in that country there should be a revolution. As to what revolution I can only say it will include blood and strife. I can only hope it will not come to that; loss of life is tragic. |
Okay, you've explained what you meant by class war; I was confused beforehand as to your definition. A democratic revolution, like the American revolution, is something I would endorse, but a political revolution waged by a group or an organization, like the Bolsheviks, was bound for oligarchism since the people themselves weren't all Bolsheviks.
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
***
Now, to the other side: a "peaceful" revolution.
There are the same criterion as above, but with certain degrees:
A. It is capable to an extent, but is hampered by internal efforts to bring about change.
B. It shares an interest for the people, but not to the extent that people would like to have, perhaps for reasons of domestic or international affairs.
C. There are some small groups that tend to exacerbate certain feelings, with no intention of being tied to the government or any other affiliation, but for their own gain.
Arriving at this it is possible to change certain elements without having to overthrow a government. But the road may be long for those who want a cultural and social revolution. |
A long is necessary, in my opinion. It establishes socialism by means of democratic process. If the road to communism is NOT democratically done, it is bound to fail. Either the people help lift each other on the road, or one person steps on them all.
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
***
It is my suggestion that if the former decision is arrived at by the people as a majority then it should be carried out to its fullest extent doing only what is necessary up until its gains are realized; then and only then should it repair and promote its functions, avoiding fundamental errors that could in time lead to a more repressive government than before.
It is my intention to show how when the people have achieved their revolutionary goals to run the government in a fashion simliar to that of a libertarian state, so to say.
-- The new government, taking power only from the consent of the governed as natural social contract would indicate, is to make a new constitution that will be markedly more individual oriented and group oriented. |
The best possible way for a revolution to avoid falling into despotism is to transfer power to a democratic body as quickly as possible. A democratic body, if possible, should govern the revolution, giving it a chance of democratic success.
Still though, establishing a communist society via revolution isn't feasible. This world is capitalist, meaning that a decentralized communist "nation" would be overrun by foreign troops, or lose economic competitive wars. To establish communism, the imperialist tendencies, and our inhumanity towards fellow man, needs to be addressed. An example of a fictional "communist" society is the United Federation of Planets. The Federation is the communist society I want to make a reality. I know human beings have the capacity for cooperation, it just needs to become a social attribute. It can happen, but only after slow change, and most likely, a destructive event forcing us to accept peace with each other.
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
| -- Disregarding those inefficient rules that contributed to the original downfall of the old government and placing a liberal yet stringent, effective document that will protect the individual and group rights [of which I will assume a more revised version of our Constitution should be a framework for this] while preserving some sense of unity and a semblance of local, state and national government that will be efficient without resorting to bureaucracy. |
Since my personal conviction is socialist reform towards communism, the best constitution to do the job would have to be something resembling the American Constitution. Branches of government should be separated, and there should be a way for the Judicial Branch to exert its rulings (Supreme Court Justices, in fact, have no way of actually enforcing their rulings), and the Executive Branch should be limited. The Executive Branch is inherently dictatorial, since one man leads it, and decides policy for all organizations contained within.
In any case, a system of checks and balances should be maintained. The government should NEVER be able to work in unison, there should always be some contention and dissenters and opposition. A totalitarian government obeys all rulings; a democratic government debates and divides through branches of power.
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
| -- Emphasis must be placed upon growth, and capitalism, while regarded as a corruptive element should not be discouraged as it would be vital to an economy which is restarting and regrowing. After that then it up to the constituency to implement whatever plans they have for their economy. But the formations of corporations and conglomerates, in history - have done much more harm than good. It would not be wise to form these, but to promote the growth of cooperatives amongst states and groups to enrich the gains of the individual. This should only be promoted on a voluntary basis. |
Agreed. A society that is slowly socializing shouldn't disband capitalism, since capitalism is the global economic "lingua franca", and those who are not capitalistic will endure tremendous economic hardship. All corporations should have unions. And, I think that unions should form a "Board of Directors", so that every worker has a say in what the company does.
Adding on to your thoughts of large and dangerous corporations, there should be strict monopoly laws.
Infusing my own Technocratic analysis, a good way for a socialist society to create a working command economy is to leave it up to supercomputers. It would of course require the adequate technology, censuses, surveys, and input data for everyone, but it would have the virtue of being realistic and workable.
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
| -- There should be no implementation of censorship of any sort. There should be a free and uninterrupted flow of information, while protecting individual privacy overall. What people do on their own with whatever or whomever they choose shall not be of any concern to the government. Freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly shall be promoted and maintained as well as that of the rest of the Bill of Rights. The new government should not make laws contrary to these principles. |
I completely agree with you. But, I also add something.
Marriage is a religious ceremony. Government participation, and recognition, is an inherent violation of the First Amendment. Marriage ceremonies, thus, should be a strictly religious or private matter only. Civil Unions are less secular, and more appropriate for actual recognition by the government, and participation thereof.
And, the freedom of sexual choice needs to be added to the Bill of Rights. Once marriage becomes strictly religious-only, gays won't have problems getting married, and we won't have a gay marriage debate. Although sodomy and sexual laws were struck down recently, they should be strictly prohibited against. What people do in their own homes isn't the State's business. The State has no right to say what kind of sex you can have.
And, prostitution shouldn't be illegal. The reason it's illegal is because many religious scriptures say that promiscuity and prostitution is wrong, and by making it illegal, our laws become more theocratic and less secular.
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
| -- I would also add that in the sense of deriving funds for the government, I would assess Drzhen's idea of a flat tax, although I am partial to a progressive tax for those who make a certain percentage above that of normal income. [QED] |
What does QED mean?
The reason I'm a proponent of my flat tax theory (Dzhukarin I strongly recommend you analyze it, I think you'll like it) is because here in America, people won't buy a progressive income tax. But, a flat tax with socialist trimmings would be far more acceptable. One day, in the hypothetical "1000 years of socialist reform", people will be ready for progressive income tax, starting us all on the road to economic equilibrium.
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
-- The military at the time of renewal should not be capable of a coup; but should be capable for national defense after the revolution is won. The military should be kept within range of government sight; let the military take an inch, and they will take a mile instead.
Martial law should be revised to reflect changes in government and council policy. |
How can you outlaw coups? It's like saying we ought to outlaw revolutions; they just happen. But in principle I agree that there needs to be strict control on the military. If there isn't, we can easily fall into a military dictatorship.
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
| -- Councils should be formed on every level, and constructive criticism of work and government should be a basic part of the functions of every council. These councils should also maintain public facilities and uphold a sense of unity. |
The only fear I have is that these councils could review literature and "go Soviet" on us. It happened to Zamyatin during the early years of the Soviet Union.
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
| -- I cannot stress this any more than I have to. The church and the state shall remain seperate by every means. There will be no "In God We Trust", no "one nation, under God". It is the obligation of every citizen to exclude from the state any notion of being divinely protected by an ethereal being or promoting holy principles which do not belong in a non-secular organization. |
Agreed. Religion should be a strictly individual affair. The State should not, should NOT, involve itself, even an inch, in any religious debate.
When you typed: "promoting holy principles which do not belong in a non-secular organization" you should have said "secular organization". Double negative paradox. But, I understand what you meant.
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
| -- The new government should have a limited interest insofar as individual health. It should begin to make available free inoculations, shots and institute a national plan of health that should not be a burden to taxpayers. The system should be available to anyone and everyone and not be a strain in the sense of waiting lines and lists. It should also go as far as to build hospitals and train staff and nurses. It should as well implement alternative techniques for healing in its plans. |
Agreed.
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
| -- Schools, universities, colleges and seminaries are to be as well-funded and well-maintained with the highest quality of learning imaginable, while being able to educate to the fullest extent on any subject. |
All of those need to be cost-free to citizens. It would benefit society to allow everyone the right to be able to be what they wish to be, more so than if they had too little money to afford tuition. Education is a right.
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
| -- It is up to local and state councils and planning committees to build roads, interestates and other structures that the cities and states can use. |
Won't they just pork-barrel?
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
-- Discrimination, although a social issue, should be focused on and eradicated, as racism and sexism are to be considered anathema to a refined social order. Those with disabilities (handicapped people, or as George Carlin put it - "cripples") should be entitled to the same rights as those without "cripple"-ness.
-- Retirement and financial security are to be in the hands of the government. |
Agreed. Intolerance and racism is never to be tolerated, but reverse discrimination, i.e. "I'm black and if you criticize me, you're a racist" cannot also be tolerated.
| Commissar Dzhukarin wrote: |
***
The picture is to be painted with brighter colors, so to say.
This should all be considered within a socialist framework and thought.
I would also like to know if I have left anything out involuntarily. I intend to answer many more questions concerning this theoretical enhancement.
-Dzhukarin. |
I thought it was a very good socialist rant, Dzhukarin. You ought to be proud.
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #20810
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-03-28 09:37
|
|
| Politics: Communist |
Country: Titan |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| James wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Discrimination, although a social issue, should be focused on and eradicated, as racism and sexism are to be considered anathema to a refined social order. Those with disabilities (handicapped people, or as George Carlin put it - "cripples") should be entitled to the same rights as those without "cripple"-ness. |
In what way? You can't go into people's minds and make them stop hating people... |
On the contrary, you modify education to include works like "Guns, Germs, and Steel" to neutralize racist hate. Racism is a result of ignorance, and only education can cure it. Sounds odd, but racism is too hateful to be allowed.
Dzhukarin never said that he thought that the Government is a perfect organism; you ought to read a little better before making arrogant criticisms. Your whole list of links is completely off topic, and has nothing to do with "Retirement and financial security" and you know it.
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
walls
Committee Member
Post #20824
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 430
Total Words: 38,497
Average words per post: 89.53
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2006-03-28 15:10
|
|
| Politics: Whatever Hollywood tells me to believe |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
and who's gonna stop me from calling people racist names? the secret police?
_________________
satan reads the bible that god is the object of sacrifice. - Parrotse
In Soviet Russia, you die for the sins of Jesus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Teimuraz Sakirovadze
Minister of Peace
Post #33716
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 1304
Total Words: 126,566
Average words per post: 97.06
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-10-08 00:48
|
|
| Politics: Technocratic Syndicalist |
Country: Evil Empire |
|
| Empiric Kirovism + Technocratic Syndicalism = ... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
What would be the outcome if Kirovism was a path to making technocratic syndicalism a possibility? Would it be entirely plausible for capitalism to take a different and more radical turn? It is largely dependent on what happens in the revolutionary stages.
It is a suggestion that technocratic syndicalism must achieve some sense of revolutionary gain. This is where Kirovism falls. (It needn't be called Kirovism in actuality, but since I came up with it I decided that it should be let alone.) Kirovism is a 'battle plan' so to say. It is flexible, and if put forth in a decent manner a revolution could be achieved without bloodshed, but if bloodshed is the case then Kirovism is still useful. To this effect I outlined the necessary six critierion that can determine revolutionary outcome.
Afterward the program linked to Kirovism, similar to technocratic syndicalism in most respects, but loose and modifiable by the democratic method - can be a first-step to the inevitable path - to the technocratic syndicalist prgramme.
The masses and government will and shall blend in, eliminating the syndrome of a nomenklatura during and after revolution. But this can be achieved only by 'extrapolating the opposition' - seeing how and where they stand, and keeping adherence to the entire line of technocratic syndicalism strong, immovable.
However if the opposition does declare an open war we have little choice. It must be fought.
True, the government may not be a particularly beautiful organism. It can be a virus, or an affliction. But when the means are available, the Third Wave - the new idea of government and of country - will be a far cry from the House of Lords, the Congress and all the old institutions that exist today. This is what the envisionment of the future is to be.
-Kirov
_________________
27-X-90 - 25-XI-08
ДА ЗДРАВСТВУЕТ НАШЕГО КИРОВА! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #33726
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2006-10-08 04:28
|
|
| Politics: Technocratic Syndicalist |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
To better incorporate Kirovism into Technocratic Syndicalism, I've assimilated many of your quotes and ideas into my Manifesto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. F. Implementing Technocratic Syndicalism
An armed revolution, to reach justification, must be able to identify these three criteria of the opposing Establishment to do so:
One, the government in power must be incapable of handling its own affairs, show corruption to an extreme level, or be in no great favor to commit to domestic tranquility.
Two, the government in power has no interest of or for the people, merely treating them as a quiet constituency which is controlled by secret police and writs of attainder. Its leaders must demonstrate indirectly that they are exactly this and nothing else, to say simple: oppressed in this manner.
Three, among there people there is too much ill will either fomented by gangs of marauders or by religious and ethnic differences exacerbated by leaders who wish something of an extreme end.
A peaceful revolution should be able to identify these three criteria to justify themselves:
One, the government in power is capable of handling its own affairs to an extent, but is hampered by internal efforts to bring about change.
Two, the government in power shares an interest for the people, but not to the extent that people would like to have, perhaps for reasons of domestic or international affairs.
Arriving at this it is possible to change certain elements without having to overthrow a government, but the road may be long for those who want a cultural and social revolution. It is my suggestion that if the cause for peaceful reformism is reached as a consensus, then it should be carried out to the fullest extent, doing only what is necessary up until its gains are realized; then and only then should it repair and promote its functions, avoiding fundamental errors that could, in time, lead to a more repressive government than before.
I. A. ii. The new government, taking power only from consent of the governed as a natural social contract would indicate, is to make a new constitution that will be markedly more individual and group oriented.
Disregarding those inefficient rules that contributed to the original downfall of the old government and placing a liberal, stringent, and effective document that will protect the individual and group rights [of which I assume a revised version of the American Constitution and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen will be a framework for this], while preserving some sense of unity and a semblance of local, state, and national government that will be efficient without resorting to bureaucracy.
I. A. iv. Censorship
There should be no implementation of censorship of any kind. There should be a free and uninterrupted flow of information, while protecting individual privacy overall. To assuage parents and people who wish to control what they or their children watch, controls shall be put into place informing them of content, thus allowing them to choose what they see. What people do on their own with whatever or whomever they choose shall not be of any concern to the government. The new government should not make laws contrary to these principles.
II. Economics
Emphasis must be placed upon growth, and while capitalism is regarded as a corruptive element, should not be discouraged, as it would be vital to an economy which is restarting and regrowing. After that it is then up to the constituency to implement whatever plans they have for their economy. The formations of corporations, conglomerates, and monopolies have done, historically, more harm than good. It would not be wise to form these, but to promote unionization of industry. Agricultural cooperatives should only be formed voluntarily, as organized collectives have historically shown to be a failure.
II. A. Unionization
All corporations of industry over a specific size (larger than a small business) should be run by their workers as a unionized corporation. The board of directors would be abolished, replaced by the union. Workers would be assigned, or propose, to handle matters of advertisement, quotas, etc, necessary for the function of a factory, business, or corporation. The founder or founders of any large business would receive a gratuitous sum of capital for beginning the business, and would serve as a union Councilman. Each union would be composed of all the workers of the business, and would vote annually upon assigned duties discussed previously, and for a total of ten Councilmen (including the businesses’ founders if they wish to be a part) which would operate much the same way Councilmen of an Assembly operate. They would organize the union and keep order in a democratic fashion.
I. D. Military
Only a voluntary standing army, navy, and air force necessary for defense of the nation should exist. It is the right of every law-abiding citizen to possess a firearm.
I. E. Religion
Religious institutions and ideology shall remain separate from the state in every area. There will be no “In God We Trust”, and no “one nation, under God”. It is the obligation of every citizen to prevent religious dogma from infiltrating a secular government of the people and for the people, not of the church and for the church.
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
