Strawberryism

[Subversive Pessimist]

edited

[Subversive Pessimist]

edited

[Subversive Pessimist]

edited

[NovelGentry]

Capitalist Arguments Against (I'm not a capitalist, but I think it'd be fun to try and speculate on some of their responses):

2, - How are we to ensure nothing illegal has happened within the home if we are not allowed ot interfere, do we lose warrants? Do we the ability to search under probable cause -- for example, if a criminal runs, are we able to chase them into their home to apprehend them, or must we first acquire a warrant (assuming warrants still exist)?

3, - Legalization is strictly a moral argument, thus I won't argue that. But why should the government have a monopoly? What if people believe prices are too high and create a new market in order to get them cheaper? Keeping this in the hands of private industry would enable competition and the rules of supply and demand to regulate prices so that a company can legally sell them cheaper if they lose customers because illegal organizations are selling them cheaper.

6, - Once again this assumes the government regulates fair prices for the "dirty work" which actually produces goods, such as in the case of agriculture that you mentioned.

7, - Are you afraid that people will disagree with your ideas?

[NovelGentry]

Capitalist Arguments Against (I'm not a capitalist, but I think it'd be fun to try and speculate on some of their responses):

2, - How are we to ensure nothing illegal has happened within the home if we are not allowed ot interfere, do we lose warrants? Do we the ability to search under probable cause -- for example, if a criminal runs, are we able to chase them into their home to apprehend them, or must we first acquire a warrant (assuming warrants still exist)?

3, - Legalization is strictly a moral argument, thus I won't argue that. But why should the government have a monopoly? What if people believe prices are too high and create a new market in order to get them cheaper? Keeping this in the hands of private industry would enable competition and the rules of supply and demand to regulate prices so that a company can legally sell them cheaper if they lose customers because illegal organizations are selling them cheaper.

6, - Once again this assumes the government regulates fair prices for the "dirty work" which actually produces goods, such as in the case of agriculture that you mentioned.

7, - Are you afraid that people will disagree with your ideas?

[NovelGentry]

Capitalist Arguments Against (I'm not a capitalist, but I think it'd be fun to try and speculate on some of their responses):

2, - How are we to ensure nothing illegal has happened within the home if we are not allowed ot interfere, do we lose warrants? Do we the ability to search under probable cause -- for example, if a criminal runs, are we able to chase them into their home to apprehend them, or must we first acquire a warrant (assuming warrants still exist)?

3, - Legalization is strictly a moral argument, thus I won't argue that. But why should the government have a monopoly? What if people believe prices are too high and create a new market in order to get them cheaper? Keeping this in the hands of private industry would enable competition and the rules of supply and demand to regulate prices so that a company can legally sell them cheaper if they lose customers because illegal organizations are selling them cheaper.

6, - Once again this assumes the government regulates fair prices for the "dirty work" which actually produces goods, such as in the case of agriculture that you mentioned.

7, - Are you afraid that people will disagree with your ideas?

[Subversive Pessimist]

I'm tired, so I might do write some things that seem contradictionary, but okay :)


When mentioning number two I was not thinking as much on things like crimes.

I remember reading a book about the 8 hour plan for the North Korean government. The plan was that every citizen in the country should

Work 8 hours
Rest 8 hours
Study Juche 8 hours (!!)

8 hours is a lot. If someone was to DEMAND me to study marxism-leninism I would most probably not do it, but I do it because I like to, because I think it is interesting, exciting and useful. I also talked about artists and their freedom of expressions in number 10. I don't think that artists and writers should be restricted to only write things that could only benefit socialism. That is one of the things I am meaning about "privacy". Government should not interfere when two consenting adults are doing in their bed, for example. The government should not be involved or interfere in the sexual life of two people that mutually agree on what they are doing.


What if people believe prices are too high

Then the people can discuss the prices.


7, - Are you afraid that people will disagree with your ideas?


No, we just don't like you!!! :lol:


Seriously, what do you think NovelGentry? :)

[Subversive Pessimist]

I'm tired, so I might do write some things that seem contradictionary, but okay :)


When mentioning number two I was not thinking as much on things like crimes.

I remember reading a book about the 8 hour plan for the North Korean government. The plan was that every citizen in the country should

Work 8 hours
Rest 8 hours
Study Juche 8 hours (!!)

8 hours is a lot. If someone was to DEMAND me to study marxism-leninism I would most probably not do it, but I do it because I like to, because I think it is interesting, exciting and useful. I also talked about artists and their freedom of expressions in number 10. I don't think that artists and writers should be restricted to only write things that could only benefit socialism. That is one of the things I am meaning about "privacy". Government should not interfere when two consenting adults are doing in their bed, for example. The government should not be involved or interfere in the sexual life of two people that mutually agree on what they are doing.


What if people believe prices are too high

Then the people can discuss the prices.


7, - Are you afraid that people will disagree with your ideas?


No, we just don't like you!!! :lol:


Seriously, what do you think NovelGentry? :)

[Subversive Pessimist]

I'm tired, so I might do write some things that seem contradictionary, but okay :)


When mentioning number two I was not thinking as much on things like crimes.

I remember reading a book about the 8 hour plan for the North Korean government. The plan was that every citizen in the country should

Work 8 hours
Rest 8 hours
Study Juche 8 hours (!!)

8 hours is a lot. If someone was to DEMAND me to study marxism-leninism I would most probably not do it, but I do it because I like to, because I think it is interesting, exciting and useful. I also talked about artists and their freedom of expressions in number 10. I don't think that artists and writers should be restricted to only write things that could only benefit socialism. That is one of the things I am meaning about "privacy". Government should not interfere when two consenting adults are doing in their bed, for example. The government should not be involved or interfere in the sexual life of two people that mutually agree on what they are doing.


What if people believe prices are too high

Then the people can discuss the prices.


7, - Are you afraid that people will disagree with your ideas?


No, we just don't like you!!! :lol:


Seriously, what do you think NovelGentry? :)

[NovelGentry]

I think a lot of your points are moral issues, which is why I didn't address them. I don't think it's the right of any government to impose moral issues on a people, which is why legally speaking I'm pro choice, on the drug issue I'm for legalization, for keeping the eath penalty legal. It should be noted, that while I may think the death penalty is legal, I think the system needs to be revised in where it can be applied. Even severe cases of multiple rape/murder that garner a conviction without much SOLID evidence should not warrant the death penalty -- No matter how nonpartial a jury says they are, there are some people who are just assumed to be guilty from the start (Ever seen the Life of David Gale? I'm gonna watch that now...).

I agree with your obvious truths... examples being:

- we need to agressively pursue and attack the bourgeoise
- we need little or no government interference when it comes to private homes
(in fact we need no government, we need true democracy on a communal level)
- we need free speech (and I also believe free press)
(what we CANNOT have is bought press or monopolized press)

In general I agree with what you say, but there's a few things I think most people confuse, best example is where I say free press but not bought or monopolized press. Arguing that the US has free press is like arguing that people have equal opportunity to become wealthy. It's not free and people aren't equal, if it was, I wouldn't have an issue with it.

The thing is, I'm not sure whether you're positioning these ideas for a socialist or communist state. Under communism i see most of these as a non-issue. Under socialism or any warped transitional government towards communism then these are HUGE issue, but they can easily be managed because of the nature of a centralized government.

I make no claim to know what's best for socialism or any transitional government, instead I take the easy path out and just say it's not gonna matter under communism because communism in it's purest sense is beyond all this bullshit. If you're asking me what I would do givern the opportunity to run a transitional government, then my answer is simple -- do what I think is best for the people and what will get us to communism the fastest without making an enemy out of my own people (any of them). What that is I do not know, because I'm not in that position, and I have no such people to dictate my actions. The fact is you can easily do what's right for a majority if you listen to what the majority has to say, but that's simply not the way it works in the US and most other capitalist societies with poor social reforms in place. I mean, for god's sake, we still have a system where our president can win with a minority vote. What if our country wasn't so focused on two parties? What if there were 5 big parties? Under our current system a president could win by only focusing on a few states in order to get the most electoral votes. Even under strictly popular vote, if there were 5 parties he would only need 21% of the vote to win. 21 out of 100 is not a majority, it is a minority an on the lower end at that.

Edit: Just to clarify when I say making an enemy out of my own people, I refere to the proletariat and possibly peasantry. Peasantry wouldn't be an issue to settle in a capitalist country going communist as it was in Russia where they'd not had a complete bourgeoisie revolution yet. I most certainly expect to make an enemy out of the capitalist -- but I think other socialist leaders have made an enemy out of the proletariat at times, even if in the end the things they did were only to benefit them.

[NovelGentry]

I think a lot of your points are moral issues, which is why I didn't address them. I don't think it's the right of any government to impose moral issues on a people, which is why legally speaking I'm pro choice, on the drug issue I'm for legalization, for keeping the eath penalty legal. It should be noted, that while I may think the death penalty is legal, I think the system needs to be revised in where it can be applied. Even severe cases of multiple rape/murder that garner a conviction without much SOLID evidence should not warrant the death penalty -- No matter how nonpartial a jury says they are, there are some people who are just assumed to be guilty from the start (Ever seen the Life of David Gale? I'm gonna watch that now...).

I agree with your obvious truths... examples being:

- we need to agressively pursue and attack the bourgeoise
- we need little or no government interference when it comes to private homes
(in fact we need no government, we need true democracy on a communal level)
- we need free speech (and I also believe free press)
(what we CANNOT have is bought press or monopolized press)

In general I agree with what you say, but there's a few things I think most people confuse, best example is where I say free press but not bought or monopolized press. Arguing that the US has free press is like arguing that people have equal opportunity to become wealthy. It's not free and people aren't equal, if it was, I wouldn't have an issue with it.

The thing is, I'm not sure whether you're positioning these ideas for a socialist or communist state. Under communism i see most of these as a non-issue. Under socialism or any warped transitional government towards communism then these are HUGE issue, but they can easily be managed because of the nature of a centralized government.

I make no claim to know what's best for socialism or any transitional government, instead I take the easy path out and just say it's not gonna matter under communism because communism in it's purest sense is beyond all this bullshit. If you're asking me what I would do givern the opportunity to run a transitional government, then my answer is simple -- do what I think is best for the people and what will get us to communism the fastest without making an enemy out of my own people (any of them). What that is I do not know, because I'm not in that position, and I have no such people to dictate my actions. The fact is you can easily do what's right for a majority if you listen to what the majority has to say, but that's simply not the way it works in the US and most other capitalist societies with poor social reforms in place. I mean, for god's sake, we still have a system where our president can win with a minority vote. What if our country wasn't so focused on two parties? What if there were 5 big parties? Under our current system a president could win by only focusing on a few states in order to get the most electoral votes. Even under strictly popular vote, if there were 5 parties he would only need 21% of the vote to win. 21 out of 100 is not a majority, it is a minority an on the lower end at that.

Edit: Just to clarify when I say making an enemy out of my own people, I refere to the proletariat and possibly peasantry. Peasantry wouldn't be an issue to settle in a capitalist country going communist as it was in Russia where they'd not had a complete bourgeoisie revolution yet. I most certainly expect to make an enemy out of the capitalist -- but I think other socialist leaders have made an enemy out of the proletariat at times, even if in the end the things they did were only to benefit them.

[NovelGentry]

I think a lot of your points are moral issues, which is why I didn't address them. I don't think it's the right of any government to impose moral issues on a people, which is why legally speaking I'm pro choice, on the drug issue I'm for legalization, for keeping the eath penalty legal. It should be noted, that while I may think the death penalty is legal, I think the system needs to be revised in where it can be applied. Even severe cases of multiple rape/murder that garner a conviction without much SOLID evidence should not warrant the death penalty -- No matter how nonpartial a jury says they are, there are some people who are just assumed to be guilty from the start (Ever seen the Life of David Gale? I'm gonna watch that now...).

I agree with your obvious truths... examples being:

- we need to agressively pursue and attack the bourgeoise
- we need little or no government interference when it comes to private homes
(in fact we need no government, we need true democracy on a communal level)
- we need free speech (and I also believe free press)
(what we CANNOT have is bought press or monopolized press)

In general I agree with what you say, but there's a few things I think most people confuse, best example is where I say free press but not bought or monopolized press. Arguing that the US has free press is like arguing that people have equal opportunity to become wealthy. It's not free and people aren't equal, if it was, I wouldn't have an issue with it.

The thing is, I'm not sure whether you're positioning these ideas for a socialist or communist state. Under communism i see most of these as a non-issue. Under socialism or any warped transitional government towards communism then these are HUGE issue, but they can easily be managed because of the nature of a centralized government.

I make no claim to know what's best for socialism or any transitional government, instead I take the easy path out and just say it's not gonna matter under communism because communism in it's purest sense is beyond all this bullshit. If you're asking me what I would do givern the opportunity to run a transitional government, then my answer is simple -- do what I think is best for the people and what will get us to communism the fastest without making an enemy out of my own people (any of them). What that is I do not know, because I'm not in that position, and I have no such people to dictate my actions. The fact is you can easily do what's right for a majority if you listen to what the majority has to say, but that's simply not the way it works in the US and most other capitalist societies with poor social reforms in place. I mean, for god's sake, we still have a system where our president can win with a minority vote. What if our country wasn't so focused on two parties? What if there were 5 big parties? Under our current system a president could win by only focusing on a few states in order to get the most electoral votes. Even under strictly popular vote, if there were 5 parties he would only need 21% of the vote to win. 21 out of 100 is not a majority, it is a minority an on the lower end at that.

Edit: Just to clarify when I say making an enemy out of my own people, I refere to the proletariat and possibly peasantry. Peasantry wouldn't be an issue to settle in a capitalist country going communist as it was in Russia where they'd not had a complete bourgeoisie revolution yet. I most certainly expect to make an enemy out of the capitalist -- but I think other socialist leaders have made an enemy out of the proletariat at times, even if in the end the things they did were only to benefit them.

[Subversive Pessimist]

The thing is, I'm not sure whether you're positioning these ideas for a socialist or communist state. Under communism i see most of these as a non-issue.

I agree. These issues are for a socialist state.



Under socialism or any warped transitional government towards communism then these are HUGE issue, but they can easily be managed because of the nature of a centralized government.

I agree.



I make no claim to know what's best for socialism or any transitional government, instead I take the easy path out and just say it's not gonna matter under communism because communism in it's purest sense is beyond all this bullshit. If you're asking me what I would do givern the opportunity to run a transitional government, then my answer is simple -- do what I think is best for the people and what will get us to communism the fastest without making an enemy out of my own people (any of them). What that is I do not know, because I'm not in that position, and I have no such people to dictate my actions. The fact is you can easily do what's right for a majority if you listen to what the majority has to say, but that's simply not the way it works in the US and most other capitalist societies with poor social reforms in place. I mean, for god's sake, we still have a system where our president can win with a minority vote. What if our country wasn't so focused on two parties? What if there were 5 big parties? Under our current system a president could win by only focusing on a few states in order to get the most electoral votes. Even under strictly popular vote, if there were 5 parties he would only need 21% of the vote to win. 21 out of 100 is not a majority, it is a minority an on the lower end at that.


I most certainly expect to make an enemy out of the capitalist -- but I think other socialist leaders have made an enemy out of the proletariat at times, even if in the end the things they did were only to benefit them.



I completely understand what you are saying and I agree with you. :)

[Subversive Pessimist]

The thing is, I'm not sure whether you're positioning these ideas for a socialist or communist state. Under communism i see most of these as a non-issue.

I agree. These issues are for a socialist state.



Under socialism or any warped transitional government towards communism then these are HUGE issue, but they can easily be managed because of the nature of a centralized government.

I agree.



I make no claim to know what's best for socialism or any transitional government, instead I take the easy path out and just say it's not gonna matter under communism because communism in it's purest sense is beyond all this bullshit. If you're asking me what I would do givern the opportunity to run a transitional government, then my answer is simple -- do what I think is best for the people and what will get us to communism the fastest without making an enemy out of my own people (any of them). What that is I do not know, because I'm not in that position, and I have no such people to dictate my actions. The fact is you can easily do what's right for a majority if you listen to what the majority has to say, but that's simply not the way it works in the US and most other capitalist societies with poor social reforms in place. I mean, for god's sake, we still have a system where our president can win with a minority vote. What if our country wasn't so focused on two parties? What if there were 5 big parties? Under our current system a president could win by only focusing on a few states in order to get the most electoral votes. Even under strictly popular vote, if there were 5 parties he would only need 21% of the vote to win. 21 out of 100 is not a majority, it is a minority an on the lower end at that.


I most certainly expect to make an enemy out of the capitalist -- but I think other socialist leaders have made an enemy out of the proletariat at times, even if in the end the things they did were only to benefit them.



I completely understand what you are saying and I agree with you. :)

[Subversive Pessimist]

The thing is, I'm not sure whether you're positioning these ideas for a socialist or communist state. Under communism i see most of these as a non-issue.

I agree. These issues are for a socialist state.



Under socialism or any warped transitional government towards communism then these are HUGE issue, but they can easily be managed because of the nature of a centralized government.

I agree.



I make no claim to know what's best for socialism or any transitional government, instead I take the easy path out and just say it's not gonna matter under communism because communism in it's purest sense is beyond all this bullshit. If you're asking me what I would do givern the opportunity to run a transitional government, then my answer is simple -- do what I think is best for the people and what will get us to communism the fastest without making an enemy out of my own people (any of them). What that is I do not know, because I'm not in that position, and I have no such people to dictate my actions. The fact is you can easily do what's right for a majority if you listen to what the majority has to say, but that's simply not the way it works in the US and most other capitalist societies with poor social reforms in place. I mean, for god's sake, we still have a system where our president can win with a minority vote. What if our country wasn't so focused on two parties? What if there were 5 big parties? Under our current system a president could win by only focusing on a few states in order to get the most electoral votes. Even under strictly popular vote, if there were 5 parties he would only need 21% of the vote to win. 21 out of 100 is not a majority, it is a minority an on the lower end at that.


I most certainly expect to make an enemy out of the capitalist -- but I think other socialist leaders have made an enemy out of the proletariat at times, even if in the end the things they did were only to benefit them.



I completely understand what you are saying and I agree with you. :)

[redstar2000]

6, - Supporting the creation of labor camps (prisoners should be among those who do the dirty jobs of the society, like picking up garbage, agriculture work etc.)

And who gets stuck with the job of guard/overseer?

And what happens to their mind-set when their job is slave-driver?

And what political role will such people play in post-revolutionary society?

Guess.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

6, - Supporting the creation of labor camps (prisoners should be among those who do the dirty jobs of the society, like picking up garbage, agriculture work etc.)

And who gets stuck with the job of guard/overseer?

And what happens to their mind-set when their job is slave-driver?

And what political role will such people play in post-revolutionary society?

Guess.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

6, - Supporting the creation of labor camps (prisoners should be among those who do the dirty jobs of the society, like picking up garbage, agriculture work etc.)

And who gets stuck with the job of guard/overseer?

And what happens to their mind-set when their job is slave-driver?

And what political role will such people play in post-revolutionary society?

Guess.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[RedAnarchist]

Here's my views on Stawberryist policies -

1, - Using media in all forms as a way to attract new members and recruits, and to agressively pursue and attack the bourgeoise
Good idea, i agree fully with this.

2, - Little or no government interference when it comes to private homes (except when we are talking about violation of the law)
Agree in some ways, but what if someone is running a counter-revolutionary Neo-Nazi group from their own home?

3, - Legalization of drugs (drugs should be sold and controlled by the government, because of several reasons. First, the government will have the drug use under their control. Second, the government can profit from it. Third, it will help stopping the creation of a black market)
Agree fully. Cannabis and marijuana should also be available for medicinal use.

4, - Anti abortion (where it is possible to prevent, people should actively try to prevent it)
Disagree. It is the woman's body, so is the woman's choice.

5, - Anti-death penalty (death penalty should not be used unless in case of war, or unless someone is doing a very disgusting and serious crime)
Agree slightly, but i think you dont go far enough. Death penalty should never be used, even for gutter-dwelling Nazis.

6, - Supporting the creation of labor camps (prisoners should be among those who do the dirty jobs of the society, like picking up garbage, agriculture work etc.)
No. Criminals need to be rehabilitated, not punished with mindless tasks.

7, - Advocating free speech but restricting rightwingers to utilize the media (
That isnt free speech, but i agree that most righties need silencing.

8, Election if the status quo government is to stay or not after a few years (a sign of goodwill, plus it is only fair. If they don't like us they don't deserve us)
Agree.

9, Since uneducated groups (politically and generally speaking) are easier to influence, they are ideal to recruit, and therefore strawberryism stresses the point to educate these groups, teaching them skills, and try to recruit these groups.
Agree, but we must allow those educated to advocate views freely - brainwashing is a big no-no.

10, Artists should have the chance to express themselves freely (unlike what happend in many of the socialist countries)
Agree. Art is something that belongs to noone.

[RedAnarchist]

Here's my views on Stawberryist policies -

1, - Using media in all forms as a way to attract new members and recruits, and to agressively pursue and attack the bourgeoise
Good idea, i agree fully with this.

2, - Little or no government interference when it comes to private homes (except when we are talking about violation of the law)
Agree in some ways, but what if someone is running a counter-revolutionary Neo-Nazi group from their own home?

3, - Legalization of drugs (drugs should be sold and controlled by the government, because of several reasons. First, the government will have the drug use under their control. Second, the government can profit from it. Third, it will help stopping the creation of a black market)
Agree fully. Cannabis and marijuana should also be available for medicinal use.

4, - Anti abortion (where it is possible to prevent, people should actively try to prevent it)
Disagree. It is the woman's body, so is the woman's choice.

5, - Anti-death penalty (death penalty should not be used unless in case of war, or unless someone is doing a very disgusting and serious crime)
Agree slightly, but i think you dont go far enough. Death penalty should never be used, even for gutter-dwelling Nazis.

6, - Supporting the creation of labor camps (prisoners should be among those who do the dirty jobs of the society, like picking up garbage, agriculture work etc.)
No. Criminals need to be rehabilitated, not punished with mindless tasks.

7, - Advocating free speech but restricting rightwingers to utilize the media (
That isnt free speech, but i agree that most righties need silencing.

8, Election if the status quo government is to stay or not after a few years (a sign of goodwill, plus it is only fair. If they don't like us they don't deserve us)
Agree.

9, Since uneducated groups (politically and generally speaking) are easier to influence, they are ideal to recruit, and therefore strawberryism stresses the point to educate these groups, teaching them skills, and try to recruit these groups.
Agree, but we must allow those educated to advocate views freely - brainwashing is a big no-no.

10, Artists should have the chance to express themselves freely (unlike what happend in many of the socialist countries)
Agree. Art is something that belongs to noone.

[RedAnarchist]

Here's my views on Stawberryist policies -

1, - Using media in all forms as a way to attract new members and recruits, and to agressively pursue and attack the bourgeoise
Good idea, i agree fully with this.

2, - Little or no government interference when it comes to private homes (except when we are talking about violation of the law)
Agree in some ways, but what if someone is running a counter-revolutionary Neo-Nazi group from their own home?

3, - Legalization of drugs (drugs should be sold and controlled by the government, because of several reasons. First, the government will have the drug use under their control. Second, the government can profit from it. Third, it will help stopping the creation of a black market)
Agree fully. Cannabis and marijuana should also be available for medicinal use.

4, - Anti abortion (where it is possible to prevent, people should actively try to prevent it)
Disagree. It is the woman's body, so is the woman's choice.

5, - Anti-death penalty (death penalty should not be used unless in case of war, or unless someone is doing a very disgusting and serious crime)
Agree slightly, but i think you dont go far enough. Death penalty should never be used, even for gutter-dwelling Nazis.

6, - Supporting the creation of labor camps (prisoners should be among those who do the dirty jobs of the society, like picking up garbage, agriculture work etc.)
No. Criminals need to be rehabilitated, not punished with mindless tasks.

7, - Advocating free speech but restricting rightwingers to utilize the media (
That isnt free speech, but i agree that most righties need silencing.

8, Election if the status quo government is to stay or not after a few years (a sign of goodwill, plus it is only fair. If they don't like us they don't deserve us)
Agree.

9, Since uneducated groups (politically and generally speaking) are easier to influence, they are ideal to recruit, and therefore strawberryism stresses the point to educate these groups, teaching them skills, and try to recruit these groups.
Agree, but we must allow those educated to advocate views freely - brainwashing is a big no-no.

10, Artists should have the chance to express themselves freely (unlike what happend in many of the socialist countries)
Agree. Art is something that belongs to noone.

[STI]

I'm bored and thought that I could make my own ideology based on my political stance. Not this is not my manifesto, just some thoughts. Let me know what you think.


Being bored is what this Board was founded on (I'm so fucking drole)


1, - Using media in all forms as a way to attract new members and recruits, and to agressively pursue and attack the bourgeoise

The mainstream media is the property of and under the strict control of the bourgeoisie. You simply can't use it to further anti-capitalist ends. It was created to lie to us.

Could you imagine.... a "Communist Ad" on FOX?!??!?


2, - Little or no government interference when it comes to private homes (except when we are talking about violation of the law)

How about "Little or no government"?


3, - Legalization of drugs (drugs should be sold and controlled by the government, because of several reasons. First, the government will have the drug use under their control. Second, the government can profit from it. Third, it will help stopping the creation of a black market)

Why involve a government at all? Why not do it collectively? I don't want a bunch of administrative fatasses profitting from the fact that I enjoy using drugs.


4, - Anti abortion (where it is possible to prevent, people should actively try to prevent it)


Sorry, pal. Womyn's rights are here to stay! The old, silly days of having anti-abortionism as a legitimate position, especially among the revolutionary left, are long over. Good riddance to them!


5, - Anti-death penalty (death penalty should not be used unless in case of war, or unless someone is doing a very disgusting and serious crime)

This I can agree with. Rehabilitation would serve much better. Jail "for the sake of jail" is garbage, just as a side-note.


6, - Supporting the creation of labor camps (prisoners should be among those who do the dirty jobs of the society, like picking up garbage, agriculture work etc.)

See RS's post.


7, - Advocating free speech but restricting rightwingers to utilize the media (


How about restricting rightwingers to exist at all.


8, Election if the status quo government is to stay or not after a few years (a sign of goodwill, plus it is only fair. If they don't like us they don't deserve us)

The lengthy stuff on Demarchy on RS's site seems like a much beter alternative.


9, Since uneducated groups (politically and generally speaking) are easier to influence, they are ideal to recruit, and therefore strawberryism stresses the point to educate these groups, teaching them skills, and try to recruit these groups.

That seems a little like the guy who says "Since kids are stupid, they'll be easy to trick into entering my van with promises of candy and back massages". Yes, we should make information freely available, but not to "trick" the working class into siding with us. They'll do that on their own, without tricks.

Tricks are for kids.


10, Artists should have the chance to express themselves freely (unlike what happend in many of the socialist countries)

So long as it isn't reactionary crap.

[STI]

I'm bored and thought that I could make my own ideology based on my political stance. Not this is not my manifesto, just some thoughts. Let me know what you think.


Being bored is what this Board was founded on (I'm so fucking drole)


1, - Using media in all forms as a way to attract new members and recruits, and to agressively pursue and attack the bourgeoise

The mainstream media is the property of and under the strict control of the bourgeoisie. You simply can't use it to further anti-capitalist ends. It was created to lie to us.

Could you imagine.... a "Communist Ad" on FOX?!??!?


2, - Little or no government interference when it comes to private homes (except when we are talking about violation of the law)

How about "Little or no government"?


3, - Legalization of drugs (drugs should be sold and controlled by the government, because of several reasons. First, the government will have the drug use under their control. Second, the government can profit from it. Third, it will help stopping the creation of a black market)

Why involve a government at all? Why not do it collectively? I don't want a bunch of administrative fatasses profitting from the fact that I enjoy using drugs.


4, - Anti abortion (where it is possible to prevent, people should actively try to prevent it)


Sorry, pal. Womyn's rights are here to stay! The old, silly days of having anti-abortionism as a legitimate position, especially among the revolutionary left, are long over. Good riddance to them!


5, - Anti-death penalty (death penalty should not be used unless in case of war, or unless someone is doing a very disgusting and serious crime)

This I can agree with. Rehabilitation would serve much better. Jail "for the sake of jail" is garbage, just as a side-note.


6, - Supporting the creation of labor camps (prisoners should be among those who do the dirty jobs of the society, like picking up garbage, agriculture work etc.)

See RS's post.


7, - Advocating free speech but restricting rightwingers to utilize the media (


How about restricting rightwingers to exist at all.


8, Election if the status quo government is to stay or not after a few years (a sign of goodwill, plus it is only fair. If they don't like us they don't deserve us)

The lengthy stuff on Demarchy on RS's site seems like a much beter alternative.


9, Since uneducated groups (politically and generally speaking) are easier to influence, they are ideal to recruit, and therefore strawberryism stresses the point to educate these groups, teaching them skills, and try to recruit these groups.

That seems a little like the guy who says "Since kids are stupid, they'll be easy to trick into entering my van with promises of candy and back massages". Yes, we should make information freely available, but not to "trick" the working class into siding with us. They'll do that on their own, without tricks.

Tricks are for kids.


10, Artists should have the chance to express themselves freely (unlike what happend in many of the socialist countries)

So long as it isn't reactionary crap.

[STI]

I'm bored and thought that I could make my own ideology based on my political stance. Not this is not my manifesto, just some thoughts. Let me know what you think.


Being bored is what this Board was founded on (I'm so fucking drole)


1, - Using media in all forms as a way to attract new members and recruits, and to agressively pursue and attack the bourgeoise

The mainstream media is the property of and under the strict control of the bourgeoisie. You simply can't use it to further anti-capitalist ends. It was created to lie to us.

Could you imagine.... a "Communist Ad" on FOX?!??!?


2, - Little or no government interference when it comes to private homes (except when we are talking about violation of the law)

How about "Little or no government"?


3, - Legalization of drugs (drugs should be sold and controlled by the government, because of several reasons. First, the government will have the drug use under their control. Second, the government can profit from it. Third, it will help stopping the creation of a black market)

Why involve a government at all? Why not do it collectively? I don't want a bunch of administrative fatasses profitting from the fact that I enjoy using drugs.


4, - Anti abortion (where it is possible to prevent, people should actively try to prevent it)


Sorry, pal. Womyn's rights are here to stay! The old, silly days of having anti-abortionism as a legitimate position, especially among the revolutionary left, are long over. Good riddance to them!


5, - Anti-death penalty (death penalty should not be used unless in case of war, or unless someone is doing a very disgusting and serious crime)

This I can agree with. Rehabilitation would serve much better. Jail "for the sake of jail" is garbage, just as a side-note.


6, - Supporting the creation of labor camps (prisoners should be among those who do the dirty jobs of the society, like picking up garbage, agriculture work etc.)

See RS's post.


7, - Advocating free speech but restricting rightwingers to utilize the media (


How about restricting rightwingers to exist at all.


8, Election if the status quo government is to stay or not after a few years (a sign of goodwill, plus it is only fair. If they don't like us they don't deserve us)

The lengthy stuff on Demarchy on RS's site seems like a much beter alternative.


9, Since uneducated groups (politically and generally speaking) are easier to influence, they are ideal to recruit, and therefore strawberryism stresses the point to educate these groups, teaching them skills, and try to recruit these groups.

That seems a little like the guy who says "Since kids are stupid, they'll be easy to trick into entering my van with promises of candy and back massages". Yes, we should make information freely available, but not to "trick" the working class into siding with us. They'll do that on their own, without tricks.

Tricks are for kids.


10, Artists should have the chance to express themselves freely (unlike what happend in many of the socialist countries)

So long as it isn't reactionary crap.

[DaCuBaN]

a "Communist Ad" on FOX?!??!?

I have a dream... :D


Why involve a government at all? Why not do it collectively? I don't want a bunch of administrative fatasses profitting from the fact that I enjoy using drugs.

A 'government' could be used in this fashion to represent workers' councils; organisation is in my mind a prerequisite of advanced society, we can't just throw it out the window. What is necessary, is to avoid getting into a state of "Us and Them". Any 'government' that is not of the people is no real government.

It seems to me that this word "government" contains as much stigma as "revolution" does outside the radical left...


The old, silly days of having anti-abortionism as a legitimate position, especially among the revolutionary left, are long over.

True, but it is legitimate to say that we should try to avoid abortion if at all possible. It's a no-brainer that it should be a freely and socially acceptable practice, however. It is, after all, not a very nice thing. I'm sure noone wants to have abortion, it's just a 'necessary evil'.

[DaCuBaN]

a "Communist Ad" on FOX?!??!?

I have a dream... :D


Why involve a government at all? Why not do it collectively? I don't want a bunch of administrative fatasses profitting from the fact that I enjoy using drugs.

A 'government' could be used in this fashion to represent workers' councils; organisation is in my mind a prerequisite of advanced society, we can't just throw it out the window. What is necessary, is to avoid getting into a state of "Us and Them". Any 'government' that is not of the people is no real government.

It seems to me that this word "government" contains as much stigma as "revolution" does outside the radical left...


The old, silly days of having anti-abortionism as a legitimate position, especially among the revolutionary left, are long over.

True, but it is legitimate to say that we should try to avoid abortion if at all possible. It's a no-brainer that it should be a freely and socially acceptable practice, however. It is, after all, not a very nice thing. I'm sure noone wants to have abortion, it's just a 'necessary evil'.

[DaCuBaN]

a "Communist Ad" on FOX?!??!?

I have a dream... :D


Why involve a government at all? Why not do it collectively? I don't want a bunch of administrative fatasses profitting from the fact that I enjoy using drugs.

A 'government' could be used in this fashion to represent workers' councils; organisation is in my mind a prerequisite of advanced society, we can't just throw it out the window. What is necessary, is to avoid getting into a state of "Us and Them". Any 'government' that is not of the people is no real government.

It seems to me that this word "government" contains as much stigma as "revolution" does outside the radical left...


The old, silly days of having anti-abortionism as a legitimate position, especially among the revolutionary left, are long over.

True, but it is legitimate to say that we should try to avoid abortion if at all possible. It's a no-brainer that it should be a freely and socially acceptable practice, however. It is, after all, not a very nice thing. I'm sure noone wants to have abortion, it's just a 'necessary evil'.

[STI]

I have a dream...

I have a nightmare... :(


A 'government' could be used in this fashion to represent workers' councils; organisation is in my mind a prerequisite of advanced society, we can't just throw it out the window.

Organization is one thing, heirarchy is another. That distinction must be made. I'm all for organization.


What is necessary, is to avoid getting into a state of "Us and Them". Any 'government' that is not of the people is no real government

Why involve heirarchy at all, though?


It seems to me that this word "government" contains as much stigma as "revolution" does outside the radical left...


Because, wherever you have people "above" other people, the guys "on top" turn "nasty".


True, but it is legitimate to say that we should try to avoid abortion if at all possible

Why?


I'm sure noone wants to have abortion, it's just a 'necessary evil'.


That might be up for dispute.

[STI]

I have a dream...

I have a nightmare... :(


A 'government' could be used in this fashion to represent workers' councils; organisation is in my mind a prerequisite of advanced society, we can't just throw it out the window.

Organization is one thing, heirarchy is another. That distinction must be made. I'm all for organization.


What is necessary, is to avoid getting into a state of "Us and Them". Any 'government' that is not of the people is no real government

Why involve heirarchy at all, though?


It seems to me that this word "government" contains as much stigma as "revolution" does outside the radical left...


Because, wherever you have people "above" other people, the guys "on top" turn "nasty".


True, but it is legitimate to say that we should try to avoid abortion if at all possible

Why?


I'm sure noone wants to have abortion, it's just a 'necessary evil'.


That might be up for dispute.

[STI]

I have a dream...

I have a nightmare... :(


A 'government' could be used in this fashion to represent workers' councils; organisation is in my mind a prerequisite of advanced society, we can't just throw it out the window.

Organization is one thing, heirarchy is another. That distinction must be made. I'm all for organization.


What is necessary, is to avoid getting into a state of "Us and Them". Any 'government' that is not of the people is no real government

Why involve heirarchy at all, though?


It seems to me that this word "government" contains as much stigma as "revolution" does outside the radical left...


Because, wherever you have people "above" other people, the guys "on top" turn "nasty".


True, but it is legitimate to say that we should try to avoid abortion if at all possible

Why?


I'm sure noone wants to have abortion, it's just a 'necessary evil'.


That might be up for dispute.

[DaCuBaN]

I have a nightmare...

Oh come on; Rupert Murdoch propgating communism? That'd be quite the thing, I reckon ;)


Organization is one thing, heirarchy is another. That distinction must be made. I'm all for organization.

I agree wholeheartedly, but 'government' doesn't necessarily entail heirarchy. As I said, it's become a 'dirty word' amongst the left. What is so bad about, for example, a demarchic political talk-shop whilst capitalism still exists in other regions?

The problem lies in one person enforcing their will over another; so long as this aspect is absent, where does the problem lie?

Issues will still have to be dealt with; It's about how we deal with them.


Why [avoid abortion]?

Why put yourself in a position where it becomes a necessity when it's avoidable? Abortion should be readily available to all, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid people needing abortions - many people speak of emotional turmoil caused by having an abortion. If it's preventable, it's logical to try and prevent it.

[DaCuBaN]

I have a nightmare...

Oh come on; Rupert Murdoch propgating communism? That'd be quite the thing, I reckon ;)


Organization is one thing, heirarchy is another. That distinction must be made. I'm all for organization.

I agree wholeheartedly, but 'government' doesn't necessarily entail heirarchy. As I said, it's become a 'dirty word' amongst the left. What is so bad about, for example, a demarchic political talk-shop whilst capitalism still exists in other regions?

The problem lies in one person enforcing their will over another; so long as this aspect is absent, where does the problem lie?

Issues will still have to be dealt with; It's about how we deal with them.


Why [avoid abortion]?

Why put yourself in a position where it becomes a necessity when it's avoidable? Abortion should be readily available to all, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid people needing abortions - many people speak of emotional turmoil caused by having an abortion. If it's preventable, it's logical to try and prevent it.

[DaCuBaN]

I have a nightmare...

Oh come on; Rupert Murdoch propgating communism? That'd be quite the thing, I reckon ;)


Organization is one thing, heirarchy is another. That distinction must be made. I'm all for organization.

I agree wholeheartedly, but 'government' doesn't necessarily entail heirarchy. As I said, it's become a 'dirty word' amongst the left. What is so bad about, for example, a demarchic political talk-shop whilst capitalism still exists in other regions?

The problem lies in one person enforcing their will over another; so long as this aspect is absent, where does the problem lie?

Issues will still have to be dealt with; It's about how we deal with them.


Why [avoid abortion]?

Why put yourself in a position where it becomes a necessity when it's avoidable? Abortion should be readily available to all, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid people needing abortions - many people speak of emotional turmoil caused by having an abortion. If it's preventable, it's logical to try and prevent it.

[STI]

Oh come on; Rupert Murdoch propgating communism? That'd be quite the thing, I reckon

When it happens, I'll have a party. Hopefully, it'll co-incide with my "The Pope is dead" party.

One can only hope...


I agree wholeheartedly, but 'government' doesn't necessarily entail heirarchy. As I said, it's become a 'dirty word' amongst the left. What is so bad about, for example, a demarchic political talk-shop whilst capitalism still exists in other regions?

I'm not against a VERY temporary state which exists for the sole purpose of surpressing the bourgeois counter-revolution. We don't need to defend ourselves against outside invaders, though. A crapload of workers' malitias should do the trick.


The problem lies in one person enforcing their will over another; so long as this aspect is absent, where does the problem lie?

If this is absent, then we'll talk.


Issues will still have to be dealt with; It's about how we deal with them.


Totally.


Why put yourself in a position where it becomes a necessity when it's avoidable? Abortion should be readily available to all, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid people needing abortions

If you're talking about education regarding birth-control, then I'm right with you.


many people speak of emotional turmoil caused by having an abortion

But could that be due to people who "don't think they should have an abortion" but "do anyway"?


If it's preventable, it's logical to try and prevent it.


Agreed, so long as that isn't used as a lecturing tool (ie: "Tsk, Tsk. You should have known better than to get pregnant. There was plenty of BC available. Now you've mucked up and we have to get you an abortion. Tsk, Tsk.")

[STI]

Oh come on; Rupert Murdoch propgating communism? That'd be quite the thing, I reckon

When it happens, I'll have a party. Hopefully, it'll co-incide with my "The Pope is dead" party.

One can only hope...


I agree wholeheartedly, but 'government' doesn't necessarily entail heirarchy. As I said, it's become a 'dirty word' amongst the left. What is so bad about, for example, a demarchic political talk-shop whilst capitalism still exists in other regions?

I'm not against a VERY temporary state which exists for the sole purpose of surpressing the bourgeois counter-revolution. We don't need to defend ourselves against outside invaders, though. A crapload of workers' malitias should do the trick.


The problem lies in one person enforcing their will over another; so long as this aspect is absent, where does the problem lie?

If this is absent, then we'll talk.


Issues will still have to be dealt with; It's about how we deal with them.


Totally.


Why put yourself in a position where it becomes a necessity when it's avoidable? Abortion should be readily available to all, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid people needing abortions

If you're talking about education regarding birth-control, then I'm right with you.


many people speak of emotional turmoil caused by having an abortion

But could that be due to people who "don't think they should have an abortion" but "do anyway"?


If it's preventable, it's logical to try and prevent it.


Agreed, so long as that isn't used as a lecturing tool (ie: "Tsk, Tsk. You should have known better than to get pregnant. There was plenty of BC available. Now you've mucked up and we have to get you an abortion. Tsk, Tsk.")

[STI]

Oh come on; Rupert Murdoch propgating communism? That'd be quite the thing, I reckon

When it happens, I'll have a party. Hopefully, it'll co-incide with my "The Pope is dead" party.

One can only hope...


I agree wholeheartedly, but 'government' doesn't necessarily entail heirarchy. As I said, it's become a 'dirty word' amongst the left. What is so bad about, for example, a demarchic political talk-shop whilst capitalism still exists in other regions?

I'm not against a VERY temporary state which exists for the sole purpose of surpressing the bourgeois counter-revolution. We don't need to defend ourselves against outside invaders, though. A crapload of workers' malitias should do the trick.


The problem lies in one person enforcing their will over another; so long as this aspect is absent, where does the problem lie?

If this is absent, then we'll talk.


Issues will still have to be dealt with; It's about how we deal with them.


Totally.


Why put yourself in a position where it becomes a necessity when it's avoidable? Abortion should be readily available to all, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid people needing abortions

If you're talking about education regarding birth-control, then I'm right with you.


many people speak of emotional turmoil caused by having an abortion

But could that be due to people who "don't think they should have an abortion" but "do anyway"?


If it's preventable, it's logical to try and prevent it.


Agreed, so long as that isn't used as a lecturing tool (ie: "Tsk, Tsk. You should have known better than to get pregnant. There was plenty of BC available. Now you've mucked up and we have to get you an abortion. Tsk, Tsk.")