Post AiZ7jaSvDKAhtuphR2 by floatybirb@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by floatybirb@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #AiV0KjtUWmTpXHGBH6 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-01T23:34:59Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Agree or disagree: Political Pluralism (the allowance of diverse political parties and views to coexist peacefully), but only socialist and communist parties are allowed. Parties that promote or advocate for capitalism or reactionism won't be allowed.
(DIR) Post #AiV1adEj9Dm3TXKpJA by nus@mstdn.social
2024-06-01T23:49:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom The problem I see with this is that in societies that are authoritarian enough, "reactionism" is just code for "any policy that is a couple degrees away from the one in power."
(DIR) Post #AiV2lS7OvPeE8HdEEC by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T00:02:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nus Well, the state in question that I'm promoting wouldn't be super authoritarian. It would be one run by workers' councils that internally function through a system of direct democracy.
(DIR) Post #AiV3RkWYsnijNbZLTE by aeleoglyphic@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T00:09:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @nus decent
(DIR) Post #AiVB3hSjPk1yZDoxRg by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-02T01:35:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom That’s not meaningful pluralism, that’s the sham of democracy you find in authoritarian regimes. People have to be free to make the “wrong” choice. On the terms you’re offering: disagree because if you’re going to be an authoritarian fuckhead you might as well be honest about it.
(DIR) Post #AiVBclIHA3Q6aLeIyW by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T01:41:31Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@madunclegenghis Being able to pick the wrong choice? You do realize that the wrong choice in this context is capitalism and reactionism (fascism), two ideologies that have caused immense suffering and death. I assume you think it's right to prevent a person from choosing to kill an innocent person, no? Well, if so, why then wouldn't you think it's right to prevent people from choosing a system that will kill millions and exploit 99% of the population?
(DIR) Post #AiVCc0CuKOEkVFL8GO by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-02T01:52:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Bless your heart. That’s the kind of spurious logic and false equivalence that lets you justify modifying people to fit your ideology rather than the other way around. Skipping over the fact that there may be alternatives to communism other than fascism and capitalism, who decides what actions and choices are, like murder, bad enough to justify stopping people from doing them? How is it enforced? How are these choices compatible with personal autonomy?
(DIR) Post #AiVDEqMkqouBH6SzvU by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T01:59:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@madunclegenghis The simple answer: The people through democratic decision-making.
(DIR) Post #AiVDtrQZoBy6RMoSRM by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-02T02:07:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Which people? What form of democratic decision making? How will it be enforced? Again, how is any of this compatible with individual autonomy? Have you actually met The People? Because lots of them are reactionary bigots. How are you going to stop people with such wrong thoughts from being part of the people that make decisions about acceptable behaviour? What if they’re actually the majority of the people? These aren’t even the complex questions, just the obvious ones.
(DIR) Post #AiVErYmWGNadzAXjyC by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T02:17:48Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@madunclegenghis 1/2 Who are the people? The citizens within the state. Who else?What form of democratic decision-making? My preferred kind would be workers' councils using direct democracy to elect people to represent the council and make decisions on behalf of the other council members on the state level.
(DIR) Post #AiVEsZqFo50jYzm72O by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T02:17:58Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@madunclegenghis 2/2 Regarding people who hold capitalist or reactionary beliefs, one of the main points of this transitional state would be to repress any any all counter-revolutionary actions and thoughts, so such people (former capitalists and their supporters, fascist and other reactionaries) won't have the right to vote or attain any political or influential positions in society.
(DIR) Post #AiVFNj85KFdlLTy7Q8 by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-02T02:23:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom If you genuinely don’t see a problem with what you’ve just written, or with the idea of suppressing thoughts, then you are terrifying. I hope your revolution fails, because replacing one evil system with a different flavour of evil is twisted. You don’t want to help or liberate anyone, just change the nature of their oppression.
(DIR) Post #AiVFyaE7O9AoRtMhYu by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T02:30:16Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@madunclegenghis I don't see how you extrapolated that from what I wrote. How is creating a socialist transitional state that is meant to create the conditions necessary to achieve a stateless, classless society that prevents former capitalists, fascist, and their supporters from gaining any kind of power that they could use to create a counter-revolution in any way evil? The only people who would be oppressed are in such a system would be the aforementioned capitalist and fascist.
(DIR) Post #AiVGlKckBiUWFO82VM by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-02T02:39:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom You literally wrote “one of the main points of this transitional state would be to repress any any all counter-revolutionary actions and thoughts”You want to suppress thoughts. I’m not extrapolating, I’m reading what you wrote.Oh, and leaving aside the questions of who decides what makes someone a capitalist or fascist and what the exact criteria are: you’re not supposed to oppress anyone in a morally good society. Oppression is inherently evil.
(DIR) Post #AiVHFN9PMEzGltjPvc by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T02:44:30Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@madunclegenghis "Oppression is inherently evil," you say? I'm suggesting that capitalists who want to reinstate the deadly system of capitalism and fascist who want to do the same but probably worse should be oppressed in the sense that they should not be given the means to start a counter-revolution and plunge society back into its horrible previous condition. Explain to me how that's "inherently evil."
(DIR) Post #AiVIFKtHrOwPiTjnCi by Rob600@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T02:55:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I think that by removing capitalism and fascism from the face of the earth, the world would be in a better place. How would you respond to people that would want or plead for capitalism or fascism to be later amended?
(DIR) Post #AiVIJ2jJK9cgY8q4aO by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-02T02:56:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Define “given the means” because unless you’re moving the goalposts in context it seemed to cover little things like suppressing thoughts. And you were the one who happily used the word, so what exactly did you mean by it?And yes, oppression is inherently evil. It’s also not the same thing as the inherent trade-offs we make in order to live in a society.
(DIR) Post #AiVIau7M5BcH3HbPFo by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T02:59:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@madunclegenghis Given the means, as in allowing them to vote or take positions of political power.
(DIR) Post #AiVIvz8GdJwUgb55dI by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T03:03:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Rob600 I'd say that they're setting up the stage for an inevitable counter-revolution.
(DIR) Post #AiVJ3KXrQ3lf7jYSC8 by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-02T03:04:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Again, how are we identifying these unpeople whose civil rights we are discarding? Is there a chance for them to learn to stop being capitalists and regain full citizenship, and if so what is it, and how are they assessed?More importantly, what did you mean when you talked of suppressing thoughts?
(DIR) Post #AiVJLp3MjHtyxJ6nPE by Rob600@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T03:08:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Would they receive any penalties? Or would they just be told they are not allowed?
(DIR) Post #AiVKThw5AxfX9U1f7o by forthy42@mastodon.net2o.de
2024-06-02T03:20:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I'd say corrupt parties are not allowed… parties advocate that out of self-interest, and get sponsored by capitalists.
(DIR) Post #AiVLIL6DqBv15vuaES by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T03:29:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@madunclegenghis I'm willing to have a conversation with you, not a rapid-fire Q&A session. I'd like to focus on one question at a time. I'll focus on the first question, and we can continue from there Former Capitalists, their supporters, and Fascists would primarily be identified based on their past behavior as well as any present behavior they engage in.
(DIR) Post #AiVLT4dBPUPpCjRnQu by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T03:31:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Rob600 Capitalists and Reactionaries rights and freedoms will just be limited. One could call that a penalty of sorts.
(DIR) Post #AiVMV71vYr75B7YcAz by forthy42@mastodon.net2o.de
2024-06-02T03:43:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @madunclegenghis Popper's tolerance paradoxon. What's worse? “Oppress” the few who want to oppress the masses, or let them do what they want?
(DIR) Post #AiVMzlcTDPI5kfGcvA by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-02T03:48:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Fair enough, though I think it’d be more useful to agree on which questions are important and tackle them first. I won’t quibble over it though. Leaving aside the practicalities of how that would be done, a reasonable answer. At some point I’d like to know exactly which civil/human rights they’re being stripped of beyond voting and presumably organising, but that can wait. The next question was about rehabilitation, wasn’t it? (Apologies, can’t easily see the whole thread)
(DIR) Post #AiVNazaqDxMRnyFuoS by louisrcouture@jasette.facil.services
2024-06-02T03:55:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom that is autoritharian as heck. You can't just ban parties and ideas you don't like. This is not anarcho anything, this is tankie behavior
(DIR) Post #AiVNrQ5tSj4sd4c5Y0 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T03:58:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@madunclegenghis I would suggest mandatory education programs to re-educate them, similar to the kinds of programs that former child nazi soldier had to undergo after World War II. Also, some form of community service would be good as well.
(DIR) Post #AiVO4UEPOJB1E2pKHA by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T04:00:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@louisrcouture It's not just banning parties I don't like. It's banning parties that have proven to be dangerous and deadly. Capitalist and fascist parties should be banned for the same reason the "Let's blow up the world" party should also be banned.
(DIR) Post #AiVO9D8WNRYxedKGHI by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-02T04:01:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Cool. And if they complete these they regain full citizenship/rights afterwards (presumably after some kind of assessment)? (This isn’t a new question, just a paraphrase/simplification of earlier)
(DIR) Post #AiVOGIOJEs2Pyj5ZKq by louisrcouture@jasette.facil.services
2024-06-02T04:03:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom well socialist parties have been a disaster in countries where they took power, it caused famines. So maybe we should ban socialist parties how about that
(DIR) Post #AiVOJHq1kd8L8GToiu by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-02T03:59:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@forthy42 @Radical_EgoCom Preventing fascists from overthrowing the state is not oppression. Denying them the right to vote might be. Policing their thoughts sure as hell is. You’re using a false binary (oppression/doing what they want), when the aim in any just society should surely be to let even the worst people have as much freedom as possible whilst still keeping society safe. Civil rights even for bastards, basically, otherwise they aren’t rights.
(DIR) Post #AiVOJIxVaIiCbkzJ1U by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T04:03:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@madunclegenghis @forthy42 Keeping society safe means limiting the freedoms of dangerous individuals. Have you not heard of The Paradox of Tolerance?
(DIR) Post #AiVOe0guhMMs276BQ8 by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-02T04:07:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @forthy42 Strangely enough I have, and even if I hadn’t it’s referenced in the post I was replying to.
(DIR) Post #AiVTc4G2xxlMHpQQHw by PVTejas@mstdn.social
2024-06-02T05:03:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom "wouldn't be allowed" They've gotta be allowed by law I think? But I hope they'll be "soft banned" via lack of popular support
(DIR) Post #AiVvGUzJhW0dXC6T9k by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T10:12:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@PVTejas No, I mean changing the law so that they wouldn't be allowed.
(DIR) Post #AiW2RrYSpyguOAuQRk by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T11:33:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@madunclegenghis Yes, that's correct.
(DIR) Post #AiW3ICCLKc7PTGW4zA by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-02T11:42:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Excellent. That bring us back to suppressing thoughts, doesn’t it?
(DIR) Post #AiW3k4SjgZyjaVTZRY by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T11:47:54Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@madunclegenghis Suppressing the thoughts of capitalists and fascists means preventing those ideologies from gaining political power or influence through education and propaganda. This suppression is necessary to prevent the restoration of capitalist or fascist systems that could undermine the revolution.
(DIR) Post #AiW4PLVNE7bMJjOJKi by madunclegenghis@mas.to
2024-06-02T11:55:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom See, now that’s a reasonable/defensible position, depending on your definition of propaganda. It’s also not what most people would mean by suppressing thoughts (in the same way that not letting fascists overthrow the state is not what most people would define as oppression). I’d suggest that clarifying your language is important if you’re seeking to persuade people to support your ideas.
(DIR) Post #AiW78e7v2QyR0k9Ici by nlupo@xno.social
2024-06-02T12:25:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom The best pluralism is just when people talk and discuss common topics. You don't need parties for that, because you can't just lump a group of people together.For an example if you and your friends want to decide to go to the pizzerea or to the movies, everybody presents their opinion and together you make a decision.
(DIR) Post #AiW7jwk8mlIVSnoTBY by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T12:32:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nlupo >>The best pluralism is just when people talk and discuss common topics.<<Yes, and when a large enough people agree on a common political topic and want to collaborate to achieve a goal relating to that topic, then that's all a political party is.
(DIR) Post #AiW8Qt7a7xlIgNFmIi by nlupo@xno.social
2024-06-02T12:40:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Yeah, I meant it in the context of decision making for the commons. I think that's not a party. Because nobody will ask for representatives to make decisions instead of them. When an expert is needed it will be just for a specific task for a short period of time. When we are talking about inter communal communications, that will be done with delegates, who can't make decisions, but who literally present the will of a specific community. 1/2
(DIR) Post #AiWCioJL9OSEnCYT68 by rsf92@fosstodon.org
2024-06-02T13:28:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom censorship is always bad
(DIR) Post #AiWDAvclYMeZaC35rk by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T13:33:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rsf92 I censor a fascist group who wants to kill [insert minority group]. How is that bad?
(DIR) Post #AiWEIcYwPM3YjcUYJE by rsf92@fosstodon.org
2024-06-02T13:46:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom that decision does not exist in a vacuum. Once you open the door of censorship against others, no matter how narrowly defined it is, it will always broaden. Plus, it pushes that discourse into the underground, where it usually gets more radicalised, look at christianity in former soviet statesThere have to be better ways.
(DIR) Post #AiWEiMOV901M7PskcK by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T13:50:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rsf92 So if there were a fascist group with a television show talking about killing [insert minority group] and telling others that they should kill them, and you were in charge of the TV station they were using, you wouldn't take them off the air and ban them from the station? If the answer is "No," then you've just become an indirect accomplice in an inevitable hate crime or crimes.
(DIR) Post #AiWFjoaDvIuZmzcf44 by rsf92@fosstodon.org
2024-06-02T14:02:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom well, assuming it's a workers co-operative, then the rest are entitled to exclude those fascists and I wouldn't count that as censorship.
(DIR) Post #AiWG7u6R3MnBrFAy3M by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T14:06:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rsf92 Whether you consider it censorship or not is irrelevant. That is censorship. Censorship is the suppression or control of information, speech, or expression of people. Suppressing a fascist spreading hate speech is, by definition, censorship, and it is undeniably good.
(DIR) Post #AiWH8F5h7ViOuBYRzk by rsf92@fosstodon.org
2024-06-02T14:17:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I kinda disagree with that being censorship. It's a union of people and some part decided to exclude some other because of something. Censorship would be to actively try to forbid them from forming their own TV station.I particularly favor combating them, ideologically and physically if needed.But it's just an opinion
(DIR) Post #AiWHzRGiZe9A1Q4p3Q by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T14:27:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rsf92 You think it would be a bad thing to forbid fascist and other reactionaries from forming their own TV stations and other media outlets to spread hate speech that will, not might, definitely will, get innocent people hurt or killed?
(DIR) Post #AiWIUqnJig62ALIqg4 by rsf92@fosstodon.org
2024-06-02T14:33:12Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom i think it sets a bad precedent that will end up paving the ground for censoring other things that we both would probably deem perfectly valid. Therefore if there's any other way to combat those ideas, I think that's what we should do ñ.If proven that the only way to combat fascists is to suppress them, then I guess I would have to support it (or at least not oppose it)
(DIR) Post #AiWn3sUGPoXuAy0dxQ by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T20:15:42Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@rsf92 Let's say I were a part of a marginalized group of people. You'd essentially be telling me that fascists speech that, if left to proliferate, will inevitably lead to me having my rights taken away shouldn't be censored because if they were censored then that **might** lead to my rights being taken away. I think I'd rather risk the possibility of my rights being taken away if it means the people who absolutely will take my rights away are silenced.
(DIR) Post #AiWnlXu4J4dh4ttyVM by rsf92@fosstodon.org
2024-06-02T20:23:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I'm saying that there might be other ways to protect your rights, and that those will always be preferable to censorship
(DIR) Post #AiWoOpYgbCxp80dINU by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T20:30:42Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@rsf92 Might be? I don't care if there might be other ways. We're talking about people who want to take away the rights of, and in some cases, kill marginalized people. Preventing these people from spreading their deadly beliefs should be the main priority. Meanwhile, you're trying to figure out how to stop the fascist without inconveniencing them too much. I don't care if their right to spread fascism is taken away, just like I don't care if the serial killers right to kill people are taken.
(DIR) Post #AiWojueYqtGB0iQwUa by ruin@mai.waifuism.life
2024-06-02T20:33:20.445Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social @rsf92@fosstodon.org might lead to my rights being taken awayMight in this case refers to how you might die if you shoot yourself in the head
(DIR) Post #AiWosZrDXXSZ7TU8H2 by rsf92@fosstodon.org
2024-06-02T20:36:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom but you are assuming that the only way for preventing them spreading their message is censoring, which might only put them under the radar while reducing their reach -we would need to see the trade off there - I'm just agnostic as to that claim, with a feeling that it's wrong
(DIR) Post #AiWpEWzmrPzscAxh5M by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T20:40:02Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@rsf92 Do you have any ideas yourself? So far, all you've been doing is arguing that fascists media advocating for murdering innocent people shouldn't be censored (I'm sure that the fascists would love the fact that you're so ardently defending their free speech) without proposing any solutions yourself.
(DIR) Post #AiWpR9fIuhrE1OOtMm by rsf92@fosstodon.org
2024-06-02T20:42:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I kinda feel that those discoursed ought to be confronted, not suppressed and defense groups (like the black panthers I guess?) could be formed to protect those minorities.Maybe not the best solution, but it might be one, idk
(DIR) Post #AiWpjydu7T9HKzikhk by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T20:45:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rsf92 Why are you so adamant to defend fascist right to spread fascism?
(DIR) Post #AiWq3D6qYYZ7hwQhJA by rsf92@fosstodon.org
2024-06-02T20:49:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I'm not particularly interested in fascism being expanded. I'm an anarchist, which I think is as far away from fascism as you can get.I'm just against censorship as a principle, and If I'm gonna violate my principles I better have no other option
(DIR) Post #AiWqUwMuONoTtYAIV6 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-02T20:54:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rsf92 It's just very unsettling that if I were to try and censor fascist who were saying they want to kill some minority you'd have an ethical objection to it and, if you truly felt like censorship is always wrong, defend the fascists against the anti-fascists.
(DIR) Post #AiWqgc3niuiWNwnGEa by rsf92@fosstodon.org
2024-06-02T20:56:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I admit it's a moral dilemma. I'd probably have strong discussions with fellow anarchists about that. Probably will
(DIR) Post #AiXD3q8mkptJlMyGOG by ByronPendason@im-in.space
2024-06-03T01:06:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Reminds me of horseshoe theory.
(DIR) Post #AiXE2N2VZBpxAhtk9Y by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T01:17:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ByronPendason How does this remind you of Horseshoe Theory?
(DIR) Post #AiXEOp1aCQCOKwAey8 by ByronPendason@im-in.space
2024-06-03T01:22:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom It's another example of how far left and far right movements resemble each other. Far right authoritarians want to prohibit dissenting parties, which communist countries have also done historically (Soviet Union, China, etc).
(DIR) Post #AiXFCGQN7GCHVOLEdU by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T01:30:57Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@ByronPendason The far-left and the far-right are not the same, despite the resemblances you're choosing to focus on. Both far-left and far-right movements want to suppress dissenting parties, but the parties that far-leftist want to suppress are fascist and capitalist parties, parties that exploit and harm people, while the far-right want to suppress parties that advocate for human rights, equality, and freedom.
(DIR) Post #AiXFl8xmqdY4V6bRse by ByronPendason@im-in.space
2024-06-03T01:37:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Communism also hurts people. Lol at every Communist regime that's ever been implemented in the real world. Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. So why are they allowed in your Utopia but people who promote a heavily regulated capitalism such as Social Democracy (such as in the Scandinavian countries) wouldn't be?A lot more people were killed in the Soviet Union than in Norway, for example.
(DIR) Post #AiXGB3jUuvyBo9HEDQ by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T01:41:57Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@ByronPendason Communism does not always lead to people being hurt. Communism, if implemented properly with direct democratic institutions and measures to prevent the formation of a new ruling class, thing that previous communist experiments severely lacked due to their Marxist-Leninist ideology, can lead to the elimination of suffering.
(DIR) Post #AiXGneKlHf3uKP6lOK by ByronPendason@im-in.space
2024-06-03T01:48:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom An argument could also be made that the same could be true with Social Democracy (which promotes a heavily regulated capitalism that ensures a livable wage and the safety of workers, and requires unions). But in your Utopia, that debate would apparently be illegal.So what happens to people like me in your Utopia? People who disagree with communism and socialism on a fundamental level. Do we get to vote? If so, what would stop us from voting for an independent candidate that promotes a heavily regulated capitalism? If not, how's that different from far right regimes that disenfranchise people who don't agree with the regime?
(DIR) Post #AiXHPMPCODoHjDAJu4 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T01:55:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ByronPendason 1/2 The same argument can not be made for Social Democracy. Social Democracy, despite its reforms, still maintains the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few people, which is the cause of poverty and wealth disparities. Communism seeks to eliminate private ownership of the means of production in favor of collective ownership, making poverty and wealth disparity an impossibility.
(DIR) Post #AiXHSWm0IaVmkhLIf2 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T01:56:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ByronPendason 2/2 To answer your other questions, in the socialist transitional state I advocate for, if someone were to support capitalism they wouldn't be allowed to vote, and I already explained the difference between far-left and far-right regimes.
(DIR) Post #AiXHldW1SIpnAHyllo by ByronPendason@im-in.space
2024-06-03T01:59:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom This is why I can't be a Communist or a Socialist. I would literally be in the Resistance to overthrow such a dictatorship.
(DIR) Post #AiXHqd0ska7b3TnHGq by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T02:00:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ByronPendason Well, if you don't want to be a communist or socialist then that's your choice.
(DIR) Post #AiXWC3BW2UE9fEsPke by Rob600@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T04:41:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom wgat would happen to Karen videos posted to social media that might happen to display hateful content, but the purpose isn't to spread the hate but to either expose its harms or spread awareness of the harms under your proposed system? Would it all be banned despite the actual intent because it contains hateful speech? Does intent matter, or would all hate speech be banned regardless?
(DIR) Post #AiXvRKmDPeDFQFQXxI by patriciaverso@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T09:24:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @ByronPendason hm... How exactly does having a Marxist-Leninist ideology lead to the formation of a new ruling class? Unless you're talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat, in which case I'd be interested so know how you would reach Communism without the transition phase where the proletariat is the ruling class.
(DIR) Post #AiY03ACVa7kjRV1GjI by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T10:15:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@patriciaverso @ByronPendason The heavy centralization and bureaucratization of Marxism-Leninism is what leads to the formation of a new bureaucratic ruling class, as it happened in the Soviet Union. I believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, one governed by direct democratically ran workers' councils.
(DIR) Post #AiYAlT1bxCdA6lgdQu by patriciaverso@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T12:16:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @ByronPendason that's oversimplifying a lot what happened in the Soviet Union. From Lenin until Gorbachev you had a war, decades of propaganda and increasingly revisionist at first then anti revolutionary leaders that led to its end. Also, the so called bureaucratization of socialist states is a classic imperialist propaganda. For instance, nothing was as bureaucratic than the Brasilian dictatorship, or anything involving the United States' governments.
(DIR) Post #AiYBSZO0BACGHyiFIe by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T12:23:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@patriciaverso @ByronPendason My statement was simplified, but not overly, and what I said is true. The Soviet Union did have high levels of centralization and bureaucracy within their government, and it's those very things that led to the revisionist and anti-revolution sentiments that sprung up. The heavy centralization took power out of the hands of the workers and into the hands of the bureaucrats, turning them into a new ruling class instead of the intended dictatorship of the proletariat
(DIR) Post #AiYBpUv6ww0x6A8Fgu by patriciaverso@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T12:16:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @ByronPendason Cuba, Laos, Vietnam are examples of Marxist-Leninist revolutions. Are they bureaucratic dystopias? I beg to differ.
(DIR) Post #AiYBpW7YU9Ywp2xhj6 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T12:27:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@patriciaverso @ByronPendason I wouldn't label them dystopian, but I do think that a system of workers' councils to govern society would be preferable to them.
(DIR) Post #AiYC0pH1cGexPPmfJI by NOISEBOB@todon.nl
2024-06-03T12:29:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom this is pure tankie logic. :(:anarchism:
(DIR) Post #AiYC1VYWPbbwXqIEPg by patriciaverso@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T12:30:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @ByronPendason what's the difference between what you call worker's councils and regional chapters of the party? Those which are, indeed, voted by the workers.
(DIR) Post #AiYCP4I3R7XUvqpD5E by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T12:34:21Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@patriciaverso @ByronPendason 1/2 Worker's councils are directly democratic organs of worker self-management that arise spontaneously during revolutionary moments or are created by workers themselves to organize production, distribution, and workplace decision-making.
(DIR) Post #AiYCQ6npa2z90wBUUy by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T12:34:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@patriciaverso @ByronPendason 2/2 On the other hand, regional chapters of the party, even if voted by the workers, are typically part of a political party's organizational structure. While they may represent workers' interests to some extent, they are not directly democratic bodies like worker's councils, instead serving as branches of a political party and may have broader political goals beyond immediate workplace issues.
(DIR) Post #AiYCjlFxOnCJysi9RI by patriciaverso@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T12:38:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @ByronPendason and you feel then that freely electing councils that affect the structure of the government months after the revolution has no chance of being coopted by the recently demoted bourgeoisie? I'm struggling to figure out how this wouldn't demolish the revolution in its infancy.
(DIR) Post #AiYD5mxPku1DcwXdBY by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T12:42:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@patriciaverso @ByronPendason With certain measures in place, such as preventing former capitalists and supporters of capitalism from participating in voting and not allowing them to hold positions of power, freely elected councils would have a very low chance of being coopted by the recently dethroned capitalists.
(DIR) Post #AiYDtdi2PhKxQM7UrA by nlupo@xno.social
2024-06-03T12:51:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @rsf92 harassment and call to violence is not what people mean by free speech, neither when someone wants their beliefs to not be chalanged, looking for gullable people, like most cults on the internet do. So preventing such things is not centorship.
(DIR) Post #AiZ7jaSvDKAhtuphR2 by floatybirb@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T23:16:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Disagree. I think it would be too hard to draw the line... your reactionary party could claim to be communist while spouting fashy talking points, or a hidebound government that didn't want a functional opposition could just claim that their opponents were being liberal or reactionary and then ban them out of existence.This sounds like the leftist equivalent of "Politicians are banned from being evil!", to which a politician could retort "I'm not being evil; you are!"
(DIR) Post #AiZ8RrX57VWvZitHWK by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T23:24:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@floatybirb 1/2 It would be a very easy line to draw, actually. A reactionary party wouldn't be able to just say they're communist and get away with it, especially if they're going to continue to promote fascism; they'll be banned immediately.
(DIR) Post #AiZ8T8NZyBry783JB2 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T23:25:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@floatybirb 2/2 Also, there are pretty clear definitions of words like socialism and liberalism. If this government actually wanted to ban a party, they'd have to actually prove that they're capitalist or reactionary, and then an investigation into the party would be done to see if the accusations match reality.
(DIR) Post #AiZ9HzsnJrIQWzuG4u by floatybirb@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T23:34:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I completely disagree; definitions twist and interpretations will be changed, especially if those definitions determine who has political power.If you have a ruling organization that has enough authority to banhammer its opposition away, it can find a way to take statements by its opponents out of context and use them as an excuse to entrench itself.
(DIR) Post #AiZ9jpjwchmBBN2Yue by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-03T23:39:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@floatybirb They may misuse definitions. If that is the case, then just don't give any one person or group of people complete say on what laws should and shouldn't be made. Have so many levels of democracy and restrictions on what one person is allowed to do that it would be impossible for the scenario you described to occur.
(DIR) Post #AiZDuo03pgrUmu49AG by floatybirb@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T00:26:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoComI think if you had the level of democracy (and socialism) you are envisioning, you wouldn't need to ban political parties to neutralize reactionaries. They would already be stalled by having to share space with the people they were trying to marginalize, and also would also not have oil CEOs constantly pumping cash into their warchests.1/4
(DIR) Post #AiZGvMqmYlLgjjgZ6W by floatybirb@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T00:26:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom So is your threat model for a mostly "perfect" society or a mostly "imperfect" one?If it's for a perfect one, I would say it doesn't need a general purpose ban. If it's for an imperfect one, I think a ban is more likely to be abused, because words are naturally slippery and twisting definitions for self-serving reasons is taught in Political Bullshit 101, which every fascist gets an A+ grade in.2/4
(DIR) Post #AiZGvOITBJ5fDteBto by floatybirb@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T00:27:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I can imagine some scenarios where banning a political party is a good idea (e.g. - the Nazis after World War II), but I think that cases like that should be an extremely contingent exception. And banning the Nazis hasn't banned AFD, which draws from the same fascist energy, but manages to skirt around the letters of a ban.I'd rather start with "do an open society!" as the general case and deal with extreme situations as needed than start with a potentially flexible ban.3/4
(DIR) Post #AiZGvPfu3fQfUrcQ40 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T00:59:44Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@floatybirb >>"Do an open society!" as the general case and deal with extreme situations as needed<< is just leaving the floodgates open for a reactionary counter-revolution. You're basically saying, "Don't mess with the Nazis who want to kill minorities and the capitalists who want to bring back wage slavery right now. Let them be free for a bit, and then if they try to enslave us again, then we'll deal with it, and hopefully, they won't have already accumulated enough power." That's stupid.
(DIR) Post #AiZGvPi1vl89bSc7NY by floatybirb@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T00:28:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Also, for an imperfect world, I'm pretty sure the situation I have described did occur in Soviet satellite countries during the Cold War; I think several of the satellite governments objecting to soviet occupation were themselves socialist or communist (at least nominally), but were accused of being counter-revolutionary by Moscow... before the tanks drove in.Someone with more Cold War knowledge may correct me on that.4/4
(DIR) Post #AiZLlANkYqn2wT3qVs by floatybirb@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T01:53:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I didn't say "don't mess with Nazis"; there are obviously things you can do to counter reactionaries besides banning political parties. And I don't think a ban would be all that effective, given the case of the AfD.Also, what is your threat model? You went from imagining a society with strong democratic controls and a leftist consensus broad enough to enact such a ban... to one that is about to be swamped by counterrevolutionaries.Which is it?
(DIR) Post #AiZMSjIUcgTJgKNHoO by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T02:01:48Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@floatybirb You've completely misconstrued my position. I'm imagining a socialist intermediate state in between capitalism and communism that exists solely to defend the revolution from any and all threats, including capitalists and reactionaries. And yes, that means banning capitalist and reactionary parties because that's how you stop them, by having 0 tolerance for it. You don't just let them form their parties and spread their hate. That's how you destroy a revolution.
(DIR) Post #AiZPdIZCe88lpIvDKy by floatybirb@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T02:37:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Thank you for clarifying.I would be worried that a state organized around a motto of revolutionary defense could develop its own (non-capitalist) hierarchies, find its own way to be oppressive and then justify whatever misdeeds it was doing as squelching the capitalists or whatever.But assuming that's not what's really going on in this scenario, then why would the counterrevolutionary position even be popular? I assume the revolution makes peoples' lives better, right?
(DIR) Post #AiZPyFD8JpKVV1aQme by Rob600@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T02:41:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I want to try this proposal, where you only have socialist and Communist parties. I would support a non capitalist society. Does this prevent anarchist parties, as your post says only Communist and Socialist parties? Probably an obvious answer. While anarchism isn't necessarily communism, it's not capitalism and likely not reactionary.
(DIR) Post #AiZQAoOPL6DU5Zqw0e by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T02:43:22Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@floatybirb Counter-revolutionary sentiments and beliefs will still exist even after the revolution, and unless they're made impossible to flourish, they will grow into a Counter-revolutionary movement. That's why banning capitalist and reactionary parties is necessary.
(DIR) Post #AiZQJrLzhQcdsY2QdM by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T02:45:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Rob600 Anarchist parties that align with socialism and communism would be allowed.
(DIR) Post #AiZRGbREW4pFbSV2R6 by floatybirb@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T02:55:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I will agree that there will be reactionary sentiments, but why would they grow enough that they swamp your revolutionary state though?Usually, when you get strong reactionary sentiments today, it's fed by a failure in capitalism. Like neoliberalism guts reliable jobs, formerly steady people feel insecure and then fascism festers in the cracks.Unless something similar is going on in the revolutionary state, reactionary sentiments would lack momentum.
(DIR) Post #AiZRdctFHi8ClZa3iS by Rob600@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T02:59:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom ok. What are some things/activities that you would ban/restrict in such a society. Such as guns, rascism.
(DIR) Post #AiZRky7UkcsmdWkMb2 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T03:01:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@floatybirb I don't know how you could be so naïve to think that capitalist and fascist won't just lie and trick themselves back into power like they have in the past if they're given the freedom to do so.
(DIR) Post #AiZTvoh0LEeWUZelbU by floatybirb@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T03:25:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I mean they might try, but why do you think they will automatically succeed? And why would a political party ban be the best (or only) means to stop them?Monarchs would probably like to trick themselves back to being rulers of France and Russia, but that doesn't mean they've succeeded.The only scenarios I can imagine that the ban you're suggesting would be useful seem very odd, and the ways it might be abused seem plentiful.
(DIR) Post #AiZUa65p4DB82dTLSS by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T03:32:46Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@floatybirb Do you think that capitalist/fascist should have the right to create political parties, organize politically, and spread their beliefs?
(DIR) Post #AiZW4gtatpbApCu8wq by floatybirb@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T03:49:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom "yes" and "maybe" depending on context, even if I think both of those things are dumb and bad. I'd rather they be ignored or challenged rather than arrested if I had a choice, because I don't trust giving the state a banhammer on organizing political parties.I feel like kicking fash from websites for harassing people or tossing their flyers into the shredder or punching Richard Spencer is a different manner, because its not a case of state power being brought to bear.
(DIR) Post #AiZzXDSYJpAIbCD5e4 by bufalo1973@tuiter.rocks
2024-06-04T09:19:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoComI think there's a better course of action: steer the common sense with laws. If business have to be cooperative ones and the usual current one have it harder in time every business will be cooperative. And for the rest of things it would be the same. Not forcing people to think in the "correct" way. Making the norm the communist way.@madunclegenghis
(DIR) Post #Aia08r9ngezGQvO4SO by bufalo1973@tuiter.rocks
2024-06-04T09:26:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoComExplaining history without filters is the best way. And I include filters to make communism look better than it is. Every system has flaws and not wanting to acknowledge them is calling for a counter-revolution.@Rob600
(DIR) Post #Aia4fDlNZb7vd0eWG0 by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T10:17:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bufalo1973 @madunclegenghis I don't think that there's any rational justification that I can think of for a transitional socialist society to allow capitalists and reactionaries to have free reign to spread their beliefs.
(DIR) Post #Aia61ibxf3W1cvXTQu by bufalo1973@tuiter.rocks
2024-06-04T10:32:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoComIt's not free reign. It's controlling the fakes. Capitalism propaganda works because it can spread lies. If the law says that mass media can't spread lies and make them pass as news, capitalism crumbles. If big businesses and right wing politics had to tell the truth no one would buy their shit. It's not the same "we want a public-private health care cooperation" than the truth: "we want to destroy the public system to benefit our friends".@madunclegenghis
(DIR) Post #Aia7XkSeQ29UaK1MKO by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T10:49:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bufalo1973 @madunclegenghis A law making people "tell the truth" is too vague of a law to have any kind of impact on stopping capitalist/reactionary propaganda. If this were the case, capitalists/reactionaries would just tell the honest truth about their beliefs while intentionally leaving out the bad parts or rephrasing the bad parts so that they don't seem as bad. They wouldn't be lying, and they'd still be able to spread their beliefs. It would be more effective to just ban their speech.
(DIR) Post #Aia8H780zQ53uv06Cm by bufalo1973@tuiter.rocks
2024-06-04T10:57:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoComAnd who decides where is the limit? You? Me? Because "the limit" is not universal. What if someone far left from you decides that YOUR speech has to be banned for not being left enough?@madunclegenghis
(DIR) Post #Aia8ocwrhhsCA5lXKC by bufalo1973@tuiter.rocks
2024-06-04T11:03:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoComAnd I don't mean "a law that make them tell the truth". It's a law that if a newspaper tells a lie the sentence can close the newspaper and bankrupt the owners. @madunclegenghis
(DIR) Post #Aia8vgcSSDnjZdaQKG by bufalo1973@tuiter.rocks
2024-06-04T11:04:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoComAnd even if the reactionaries left the bad part out, the "good part" is too ugly for the vast majority.@madunclegenghis
(DIR) Post #Aia93ClnJk9tJXXSZk by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T11:06:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bufalo1973 @madunclegenghis Are you suggesting not to ban dangerous speech that will definitely cause harm because maybe some else might take away my speech? By that logic, I shouldn't use violence in self defense against a person because maybe someone might use violence against me, which would be stupid. Do you think that capitalists/reactionaries should have the right to spread their beliefs?
(DIR) Post #AiaA2HP2hr81Ld1GNc by bufalo1973@tuiter.rocks
2024-06-04T11:17:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoComSelf-defense is easy to define. You hit first, it's not self-defense. "Dangerous speech" OTOH... Dangerous to whom? I think it's better to make very easy going to trial and, if the speech is a lie (as all hate speech is) fine it with a big enough quantity so the one lying regrets the day that person said the lie.@madunclegenghis
(DIR) Post #AiaBAcbvq7fVOTadQe by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T11:29:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bufalo1973 @madunclegenghis So you do think that capitalists and reactionaries should have the right to promote their beliefs?
(DIR) Post #AiaOzE4y6eKjU0dEZ6 by stib@aus.social
2024-06-04T14:04:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoComIf the socialist transitional state was creating a fairer, more just, and generally better society why would you worry about people voting against it? They would be in the minority and ultimately irrelevant. If a system doesn't stand the test of popular democracy that kinda points to it not being the best for the majority of the people.(Obviously this is dependent on people being well informed, and a fair and democratic electoral system, but if you're at the point where you can stop pro-capitalists from voting you've already strung Rupert Murdoch up from a streetlamp and re-zoned the local gerrymander, I'd presume). @ByronPendason
(DIR) Post #AiaPpChKUFTUG1MMgS by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T14:14:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@stib @ByronPendason Capitalist and reactionary opposition would be the societal flaw, and that flaw is remedied by banning capitalist and reactionary activity. By banning that activity, the transitional state will be able to do what it is meant to do more smoothly, creating the conditions necessary for a stateless and classless communist society.
(DIR) Post #AiaoekoRo34njOnqq0 by noisenerd@mastodon.social
2024-06-04T18:52:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom I see this as kind of an extension of the "paradox of tolerance" thing. I do understand why people have a knee-jerk reaction against it, but in cases like this it's really not so much limiting people's freedom as it is making sure that these kinds of people don't end up in a position of limiting people's freedom (or worse) themselves.
(DIR) Post #AibJrvFrOJ1KScNsxs by stib@aus.social
2024-06-05T00:42:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @ByronPendason Banning ≠ remedying. I mean we've banned drugs for a long time, look how well that's gone.
(DIR) Post #AibLg6Ri9m2VbQQ3X6 by stib@aus.social
2024-06-05T00:50:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @ByronPendason You could also end capitalist and reacvtionary opposition by just being better than capitalism. Apart from the minority who lose their position at the top of the pyramid a fairer society should be massively popular. If you have to ban dissent then you're not doing something right.And also, people get things wrong. Even people in the Party. If you can just shut down dissent about things that legitimately are going wrong, just by labelling it reactionary, then you've opened the door to corruption and tyranny.
(DIR) Post #AibLg7bJrXJrBVvF9E by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-05T01:02:25Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@stib @ByronPendason Your argument is extremely flawed, and the flaws can be shown just by applying your poor logic to any other scenario. For instance:"If you have to ban murder, then you must be doing something wrong. You can end murder by just being better than the murderers. If you're allowed to just arrest someone for being a murderer, then you've opened the door to false murder charges."Replace "murder" with any horrible thing, and it's equally as stupid.
(DIR) Post #AibPVXaZId5KPqmUcq by stib@aus.social
2024-06-05T01:45:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @ByronPendason Straw man much? Murder doesn't serve a useful purpose in society, dissent does.A ban on murder comes from a widespread desire by people to not have murder, it's a codification of a societal norm. A ban on dissent is qualitatively different. Try again.
(DIR) Post #AibPhShtHB2ikYtH8a by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-05T01:47:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@stib @ByronPendason >>Murder doesn't serve a useful purpose in society<<Are you suggesting that capitalism and reactionism do have a useful purpose in society? Because if they don't, then it isn't a strawman.
(DIR) Post #AibQc5SiN84vADnEQq by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-05T01:57:43Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@stib @ByronPendason Do you think that capitalists and fascists freedom of speech and assembly is something that should be defended? Is that really something you want to stand for?
(DIR) Post #AibQsKJIvztPqe8R4S by bhasic@mastodon.social
2024-06-05T02:00:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Basically everything else than socialist parties want to exploit someone and something and have the ruling class and the others.
(DIR) Post #AibR7LXKepIVzkrHgu by WmShakesp3are@mastodon.social
2024-06-05T02:03:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom sounds like repression to me@stib @ByronPendason
(DIR) Post #AibRnGkIrMxBIbuqEy by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-05T02:10:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@WmShakesp3are @stib @ByronPendason Yes, it is repression. Repressing capitalists and reactionaries. Do you think it's a bad thing to repress capitalists and reactionaries?
(DIR) Post #AibTR3ZXMHE9ymPr96 by pirategoddess@social.vivaldi.net
2024-06-05T02:29:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @WmShakesp3are @stib @ByronPendason In practice I don't trust any governing institution, no mater the makeup, to make that decision. I may hate their speech, but if we start to repress their speech then what's protecting mine?
(DIR) Post #AibTpnadutaVeQjOqG by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-05T02:33:49Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@pirategoddess @WmShakesp3are @stib @ByronPendason This is a dumb argument. "Don't repress hateful and dangerous speech because the government *might* censor my speech." And what if the government doesn't censor your speech next? Then you would've just condoned the perpetuation of hate speech for nothing.
(DIR) Post #AibUCrMa3Q1K0v9MSO by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-05T02:37:56Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@andyw350 @WmShakesp3are @stib @ByronPendason Your argument relies on a bunch of assumptions and maybe's. Yes, a government might be in a position to just call anyone a capitalist and censor anyone who they don't agree with. The solution isn't to just let any person spread dangerous ideologies that will harm people. It's to structure the government in a way that will make abuses of power impossible.
(DIR) Post #AibZyIs26FrEhvIthQ by Rob600@mastodon.social
2024-06-05T03:42:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @pirategoddess @WmShakesp3are @stib @ByronPendason To know ahead of time if a given government (gov* might censor your speech next I'd look at:a.The laws in place. Also their track record regarding why they put the laws in place, and that they plan to pass through.b. Any goals/desires they claim they want for their communities.c. The type of economy(eco* they use.d. Their track record of what types of speech they ban and why they came to the conclusion to ban.
(DIR) Post #AibaF7c9CfsoigtRFA by WmShakesp3are@mastodon.social
2024-06-05T03:45:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom some would view your thoughts as reactionary.
(DIR) Post #AibbVJPhCaWHtyLwuG by Rob600@mastodon.social
2024-06-05T03:59:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @pirategoddess @WmShakesp3are @stib @ByronPendason To know ahead of time if a given government (gov* might censor(cen* your speech (spe* next I'd look at:a.The laws in place. Also how/why the *gov concluded (con* to putting the laws in place, and that they plan to pass through.b. Any goals/desires they claim they want for their communities.c. The type of economy they use.d. How/why they *con the types of *spe they *cen and ban.Reposted as I managed to make shorter.
(DIR) Post #AibdBZuiLQ7xC2ZzgO by Bugspriet@social.tchncs.de
2024-06-05T04:18:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @WmShakesp3are @stib @ByronPendason In the end, one cannot supress thinking. You will have to find good arguments that keeps the majority going. Or you risk a coup which forces you to engage more supression.
(DIR) Post #AibloSyas36YbWRrPM by stib@aus.social
2024-06-05T05:55:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @andyw350 @WmShakesp3are @ByronPendason This point I agree with, but I'd really like to know how that would be possible in the actual real world. I mean name a government of any kind that doesn't include some people who are in it for personal gain or the pursuit of power. Maybe it would happen if power were carefully devolved to workers' councils or some such, but there's always going to be grifters and bullies and wannabe despots.I'd rather live in a regime where espousing capitalist ideology was laughable than one where it would get you sent to the gulags.
(DIR) Post #AiejfW4IO9nh9ZbF2W by 61ennepi@mastodon.social
2024-06-06T16:15:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom as capitalism ends up in a private monopoly and socialism (Soviet style, I mean) ends up in state monopoly I can't see any meaningful difference between the two.Fascist movements are the only ones to forbid at general, local, and all sorts of by-elections. That's for a very simple reason: they play unfairly, they advocate for themselves those rights they will be taking away from others.Fascism is not even a deviant ideology. It's just crime pure and simple.
(DIR) Post #AiekPOTovy4awJPmfg by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-06T16:23:39Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@61ennepi The difference between capitalism and a transitional socialist state is their ultimate goals (capitalisms goal being to maintain the power of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, and socialisms goal being to repress counter-revolution and transition into communism) and how they would be governed (the kind of transitional state I support would be governed by workers' councils that use direct democracy to elect representatives to represent them on a state level).
(DIR) Post #Aif9TrjQcH5Jfswbyq by mistergibson@mastodon.social
2024-06-06T21:04:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom 1st Amendment and U.N. Charter of Human Rights: freedom of expression, and opinion and freedom FROM religion covered already --> no sense throwing out the baby with the bathwater in an effort to re-invent the flat tire.
(DIR) Post #AifA2F3IPyBDqbd4Iy by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-06T21:10:49Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@mistergibson I don't care what the American Constitution or the UN says. I'm only concerned with what will stop the spread of fascism and capitalism, and banning the promotion of the two and the organization of political parties centered around them appears to be the most efficient way.
(DIR) Post #AifBoaSKF60I5Gx9aS by nsharma2725@mastodon.social
2024-06-06T21:30:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @mistergibson I wonder if there ever would be a need for a new constitution, should the current government be abolished. 🤔
(DIR) Post #AifCi8aZ2SxTs9IMZk by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-06T21:40:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nsharma2725 @mistergibson Yes, of course, a new constitution would be required.
(DIR) Post #AifCohMSfUVfSGpLbE by mistergibson@mastodon.social
2024-06-06T21:41:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @nsharma2725 As long as it centers on Human Rights as a document --> I'm all ears. I'd love to see something like that.
(DIR) Post #AifCpKIvsXrOEcTa0u by nsharma2725@mastodon.social
2024-06-06T21:42:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom @mistergibson Roger... I mean, copy that! 🫡 O7 o7 o7 O7
(DIR) Post #AijZM2hjJMpcpTv65A by enoch_exe_inc@mastodon.social
2024-06-09T00:13:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom Given that there are only two options, these days, I tend more towards ‘agree’ than ‘disagree’. However, I consider pluralism to be an unsolved problem in political science (‘unsolved’ like the P vs NP problem in computer science).Regardless, the one party is the one class—the working class.
(DIR) Post #AikZloXqlwl9bOY0lE by duckwhistle@mastodon.org.uk
2024-06-09T11:52:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom What about political parties supported by co-ops, technically they support capitalism?
(DIR) Post #AikZwHmUvZ6JAlONCC by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-09T11:54:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@duckwhistle If they support capitalism them they wouldn't be allowed .
(DIR) Post #AikgqtkXY3LAs4r2XY by duckwhistle@mastodon.org.uk
2024-06-09T13:12:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom But do you consider a commercial co-operative to be a capitalist structure. Because I do, but also think they would be an ideal transition from publicly and privately traded companies, without them being taken over by the government.
(DIR) Post #AikhJjXEbZ5zaaNf2O by Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social
2024-06-09T13:17:18Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@duckwhistle Commercial cooperatives wouldn't need to exist in a socialist society since the means of production would be commonly owned and democratically controlled by the workers or the community as a whole. If they do exist, then they would likely be integrated into a broader system of social ownership and planning instead of existing as independent entities.
(DIR) Post #AjEYDHyDpiLO0erYo4 by KaizAek@mastodon.social
2024-06-23T22:56:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Radical_EgoCom have you noted how this view of policy, runaway from the meaning of International statements.