My first post - And "manifesto".

[RevLeftNY]

Hello, all. This is my first time posting on this forum, and as such, I'd like to give you all some idea as to my political views. Evidently you already know i'm a leftist, and likely a Socialist or something of that nature, but I feel that doesn't exactly cover it. And so, I'd like to post what I have done of my own manifesto, for lack of better term, and get some feedback. The paper will encompass economic, social, and cultural aspects, as well as political. I will be posting it in pieces, probably once a day (maybe more, depending on feedback), as to not overwhelm people. Criticism, opinions, adjustments, etc. are all welcome. What is to immediately follow might seem blatantly obvious, but bare with me, and please do try to work with it. I'm looking forward to hearing what others think of it, good or bad.



Socialism In America: A Brief Overview

In a relatively hardcore, dedicated-to-capitalism
country like the United States, the exploitation of such a system is necessary in beginning the revolution. The most major key of Socialism in the United States, is ensuring the "benefits" associated (though perhaps inaccurately so) with the current regime. Freedom of Speech, Religion, Press, Universal Suffrage, etc. are key elements. To suppress the people would be to welcome rebellion to the front door, and while it may be only a small few, it certainly would be enough to cause a scene. Once that happens, there is no winning for a newly established Socialist state. Should the regime fight back, and likely slaughter the dissenters, global backlash, as well as domestic fury, would cause more rebellion and anti-government sentiment. Should they choose to take a non-violent stance against the rebels, they will be perceived as weak. Thus, the rebellion should be avoided as long as possible.
[INDENT]Once the Socialist state is established, either through violent[INDENT]
revolution, or peaceful diplomacy, the worker must immediately take power. Private land that is either vacant, undeveloped, or in poor conditions, will be seized by the government. Land declared workable will then be distributed, either for settlement, agriculture, or other necessary measures. Many corporations, though not all, will become government property. Very quickly, democracy is to be introduced to them. It should work as if it was itself a nation, with each employee, no matter how high or low, being declared equal. As such, each employee will have the right to vote within the corporation. The office being voted for will be the highest ranking, the CEO if you would. Any person within the corporation is allowed to run, and hold office for a maximum of 2 years at a time, with a 3 term limit.

[The Idler]

Sounds like a rejected Red Dawn script.
Anyway, I quite like Freedom of Speech, Press and Universal Suffrage.

[Remus Bleys]

Criticism, opinions, adjustments, etc. are all welcome. What is to immediately follow might seem blatantly obvious, but bare with me, and please do try to work with it. I'm looking forward to hearing what others think of it, good or bad.
You all fucking saw him post this so don't go "oh gawd remus how could you be so mean to the newb, check your tone YOUR TONE!!111111"



Socialism In America: A Brief Overview Socialism must be worldwide...

In a relatively hardcore, dedicated-to-capitalism country like the United States,
all countries are hardocore and dedicated to capitalism. fuck american exceptionalism.

the exploitation of such a system is necessary in beginning the revolution.
yes

The most major key of Socialism in the United States, is ensuring the "benefits" associated (though perhaps inaccurately so) with the current regime.
the only people who benefit from the current regime is the bourgeois

Freedom of Speech, Religion, Press, Universal Suffrage, etc. are key elements.
there is two great pieces by lenin on these things:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/aug/05.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

To suppress the people would be to welcome rebellion to the front door, and while it may be only a small few, it certainly would be enough to cause a scene.
Thats not true. Time and time again has shown that a minority can oppress a minority, so why cant a minority oppress the majority?

Once that happens, there is no winning for a newly established Socialist state.again not true.

Should the regime fight back, and likely slaughter the dissenters, global backlash, as well as domestic fury, would cause more rebellion and anti-government sentiment.
this will happen anway

Should they choose to take a non-violent stance against the rebels, they will be perceived as weak.
or you know the rebels will take down the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Thus, the rebellion should be avoided as long as possible. Once the Socialist state is established
I hope you meant this as lenin did, and not as if socialism can have a state. it does not.

either through violent revolution, or peaceful diplomacy,
how will peaceful diplomacy work?

the worker must immediately take power.
if the worker doesnt already have control of the state by its very inception then there is a problem

Private land that is either vacant, undeveloped, or in poor conditions, will be seized by the government.
why not all land

Land declared workable will then be distributed, either for settlement, agriculture, or other necessary measures. Many corporations, though not all, will become government property.
why not all

Very quickly, democracy is to be introduced to them.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm

It should work as if it was itself a nation, with each employee, no matter how high or low, being declared equal.
nations must be destroyed and that is not how nations work and what do you mean by equality?

As such, each employee will have the right to vote within the corporation.
i dont believe in the bakery for the baker, or the mines for the miner, the dotp should have the means of production for the proletariat. What you are arguing is mutualism.

The office being voted for will be the highest ranking, the CEO if you would.
elaborate here more.

Any person within the corporation is allowed to run, and hold office for a maximum of 2 years at a time, with a 3 term limit.

term limits are very arbitrary as is reelecting
the system of delegation, in which this does not exist and people are simply recalled is much better

[consuming negativity]

o suppress the people would be to welcome rebellion to the front door, and while it may be only a small few, it certainly would be enough to cause a scene. Once that happens, there is no winning for a newly established Socialist state. Should the regime fight back, and likely slaughter the dissenters, global backlash, as well as domestic fury, would cause more rebellion and anti-government sentiment. Should they choose to take a non-violent stance against the rebels, they will be perceived as weak. Thus, the rebellion should be avoided as long as possible.

This part is really confusing to me - I can't tell if you're talking about revolution against the status quo or rebellion against what you're calling the "socialist state". Not an ideological critique - I just don't follow your thoughts the way you've written this.


Many corporations, though not all, will become government property.

:confused:

Why not all? And what about smaller businesses?

[RevLeftNY]

This was not intended as hard-line Socialism, and to be fair not even really Socialism to some, this is more of a step in helping to create more support towards the idea of it within the United States, or elsewhere. That's the reasoning as to why not all corporations and small business would be nationalized. Ideally, that would be the case. But this is a small dosage. The reasoning for allowing small businesses in particular to continue existing without the government owning them is that it will continue the allowance of small-scale capitalism. Once they become too large, or become full blown industries, they will be nationalized.

Remus, I appreciate your critiques and points on all of this, I would never expect anyone to have no issue with any part of what I'm saying.

[RevLeftNY]

[/QUOTE]Socialism must be worldwide...

all countries are hardocore and dedicated to capitalism. fuck american exceptionalism.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree with either of these points, I was merely using the United States as a more isolated model.

[/QUOTE]the only people who benefit from the current regime is the bourgeois[/QUOTE]

I didn't mean the benefits of economics, I meant the benefits historically associated with capitalism. Majority of folks look at the Soviet Union, China, etc. under their versions of "Socialism" and immediately scream "BUT MERH FREEDHUMS".

[/QUOTE]how will peaceful diplomacy work?[/QUOTE]

Well, if the people elect a majority of Socialists in the United States peacefully, there you go. Though that's unlikely.

[/QUOTE]elaborate here more.[/QUOTE]

I mean that the employee voted for will be essentially running the company, which will still be under government "control" technically. The elected person will choose the direction of the company, make day-to-day decisions, etc. with the watchful eyes of both the people and government over them.

[Sea]

This was not intended as hard-line Socialism, and to be fair not even really Socialism to some, this is more of a step in helping to create more support towards the idea of it within the United States, or elsewhere. That's the reasoning as to why not all corporations and small business would be nationalized. Ideally, that would be the case. But this is a small dosage. The reasoning for allowing small businesses in particular to continue existing without the government owning them is that it will continue the allowance of small-scale capitalism. Once they become too large, or become full blown industries, they will be nationalized.Groovy. Go print out 1000 copies and tell us how it turns out :rolleyes: