Message from Deleted User in /leftypol/ International #english_theory
@Corset Fascism has no 'long game' or 'end game'. The most successful fascist state would take over the world, but then what? As an ideology built on struggle against an enemy, but with no more enemies, it would turn upon itself, forever and ever. There is no resolution. It is fundamentally regressive. This is not a smart plan. I was dissatisfied with this. They focus on preservation instead of transformation. Once I went looking for alternatives, I found DiaMat, which was the definition of transformation.
On anti-Fascist propaganda, I haven't thought about. Let me think.
I could write a lot about this.
Ill go smoke
My friend, I will have to summarise, I have other tasks.
We can continue this conversation another time.
You can bring it up in theory at any time.
For now, I think the main weakness is the conservative bent, wanted to 'preserve' things instead of progressing. They have a static view of reality, 'human nature'. There is nothing sacred about the condition of humans. The best propaganda will expose the poverty of this gameplan.
I will. Thanks for the chat.
Science of materialism is the best anti-fascist method, I think.
It worked for me.
And this guy.
1. What is the role of propaganda? What are its aims and how should it be used?
2. What would be the Party policy on donations and other contributions of funds? How should they be used?
1.) The role of propaganda should be to agitate and raise class consciousness against the bourgeoisie.
2.) The Party should reject donations from billionaires (obviously) and from large sources. Should only accept small contributions and dues. They should be used to strengthen the party organizationally, to create more outreach, and to develop programs that benefit the poor/working class and win them to our side.
in my humble opinion.
What country would be one of the easiest to implement socialism in while being one that thrives the most under socialism
Q: Is it possible to have an international Party or can there be only national Parties?
i think it would be possible to have an international party
So do i
Maybe it would have people elected by national parties
That seems like a logical system
And then those at the top vote who the leader of the international party is
But the question is how much power should this party have I would say
@Hezbolshevik As a side note: democracy is a lie. Elections and voting are empty formalities that only sway people away from the correct course of action. In fact, it is a good way to prevent the truth by replacing it with consensus. If there is not question about the truth, if it is intellectually established, then there is no need to vote on it. Similarly, the most class-conscious and politically intelligent people, can be measured and shown without voting. Consensus is a distraction from correct practice and lets false consciousness take root. This must be protected through the authority of the most advance Party members.
So what will national parties pick random names from hats for international party admin?
And I mean voting within the upper echelon of the national party for international admin
@Hezbolshevik No, instead of elections or random choice, the position of the international party admin will just be given to the most capable person, objectively measured.
Democracy clouds the process. If you want the best person for the job then just give the job to the best person, without voting.
Select who has the historical precedent for the most effective and scientific theory and practice. Not the best speaker. Not the best comedian. Not the cleverest talker. Selection should be based on strict and principled past successes in the intellectual field and in practical action.
So how are they selected (as in through what means not what qualities they must have)and who are the people deciding who is selected?
Class consciousness is held strongest in the most revolutionary. There can only be one kind of class consciousness because it is objective reality. It is realised in the joining of theory and practice, i.e. when you have correct ideas and action, class consciousness increases, and since revolution is inevitable, the most successful revolutionaries also have the clearest sense of class consciousness (in a union of theory and practice). The leaders are self-evident. This is why Lenin implemented Vanguardism. This is why Stalin took power, not Trotsky, because his theory and practice was better.
It is not that leaders are hard to find, or struggle to prove themselves. It is false consciousness that does not follow them.
And if they are wrong, they will not succeed.
So naturally the leaders best at what they do would become apparent and subsequently gain power?