Archon_Warslut

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/42764623

This model assumes, first of all, that "there are three kinds of people possible, relative to any political system":

Relative to any single, political system, you may have people who have the following significant variety of attitudes:

1. "I don't want anything to do with this political system, even though everyone else chose it. I want to be left alone, and left out of this system, as much as possible." (Doesn't want to participate, isn't ambitious)

2. "I want to nominally participate in this political system, but, I want to do the least amount of work possible within it, while otherwise having as much fun as possible. I'm willing to work with the others, but I would like to do that as little as possible, in exchange for having as much freetime as possible, to have as much fun as possible." (Wants to minimally participate, isn't ambitious)

3. "I want to maximize the efficiency and proficiency of human society, along with others who want to do that" (Wants to participate a lot, is ambitious)

A "Freedom Communism" model is devised to attempt to meet the wants of these three different groups, all at once. There are ambition-seekers, fun-seekers, and those who want to be left alone. How can we provide ideal conditions for all of them at once, in a system that overall emphasizes both freedom and societal proficiency?

[Conversation starter] [I'm gonna edit/add to this... hold on... just wanted to get the post started---> this is the starting proposition/problem.... feel free to add your own thoughts! i have a half-worked-out idea for how to achieve this, will take a lot of typing though, check back later today or tomorrow or the next day if you're interested in this post! * work in progress; beginning section ^

YOU HAVE TO PUT THE COMMENTS SECTION INTO "NEW" OR "OLD" ORDER (I GUESS OLD ACTUALLY TO READ THE NEXT PARTS TOP-DOWN IN ORDER) TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE NEXT PARTS: ITS ALL WRITTEN IN ORDER: SET TO OLD, READ STRAIGHT THROUGH

parties cause a lot of trouble.

how bout just: individuals & their ideas, each time

and: force congress people to: not sit in their designated "zones" or with their friends or whatever; i guess assigned seating for now until a next generation comes in party-less, wherein the current batch are forced to sit alternating former-republican and former-democrat. also, no cell phones. cell phones must be checked at the door. also: all congresspeople have to stay and watch their fellows speak, rather than always being completely absent such that each person normally speaks to an empty room and into the cspan camera. i sit and watch those, and i dont understand why the actual congresspeople shouldnt. if they dont want the job, let any random other person take it whos willing to at least sit there and do it. congresspeople will: attend congress, attentively. or not.

how bout one, four-year term?

or what about one, one-year term?

what if its: if you really want to do something, get organized about it, and make it fit into one year?

if the next person loves your policies, they can keep them going.

you: i have a right to pursue ambition and greed for fun- i want to run my country against others, competitively, to advance its position in the world

me: i have a right to insist that those around me dont start wars. in a word, nationalism "is what causes wars". its what causes wars, in a word- everytime- i have MORE of a right- to insist that those around me dont start wars- than you do to say, "i get to pursue my own ambition and greed for fun, i get to pursue my own ambition and greed for fun, nyah nyah nyahna.a.a. no you DONT

its starting to look like: oh my god, this is ALL the rich people. all of them. this is what theyve been doing, all of them, the whole time. this is all they do. give anyone ten billion dollars, and all they do is spend all their time having private, wild, sex parties. thats it. thats all they do with it. do we want to give people ten billion dollars? how bout an income cap of ten million? thats enough to buy a nice house and live luxuriously. "a well-regulated capitalism" might be superior to a less-regulated capitalism or to a marxist socialism or communism.

1. misunderstands economics, completely, to begin with, and recommends a lot of total gibberish as a result. (marx was someone who never participated in the stock market and completely misunderstood it; came up with the idea that "all of money is wrong and evil" also, then said:
2. recommends a lot of violence and theft on top of that, including basically ritualized inter-generational theft and violence. (and as a semi-obvious third 3.: ends up recommending a type of government that is freedom-less and centralized; ie a fascist control mechanism, though to be fair marx didnt explicitly state this nature of it himself, this was more the nature that everyone who picked up his ideas saw in it / the potential of his ideas to just control people and to get them to think they want that, up front, and to even do all the dirty work up front of making it happen. however since he didnt quite say himself "i want exactly this nature of government..." ill keep it to the two points that actually did explicitly come out of him, starting this whole problem of governments like the bad periods of russian or chinese communism or the nazis. hitler took what ideas he liked from marxist socialism, added some ideas of his own, and went against certain other marxist factions with a vengeance; still though his own government was a type of marxist socialist government in addition to the other things about it. it started with taking over all the biggest companies in germany and making them in essence completely government-controlled. hitler made it clear that you do what he says and that the whole state will be centrally planned and that all industry will be converted "for the common good" which in his case was, war against everyone else. the things you can do with marxist socialism, or even with some of marxist socialism! how bout just the stuff about "the current rich people are all bad, LETS GET THEM AND STEAL THEIR STUFF". or, hey, what if you combined marxist socialism, with lots and lots and lots of racism!!!! equals "national" (nationalist) (racist) socialism. currently what we're fighting off in the u.s. in the form of the republicans right now wanting this. actually wanting this! while they think theyre against marxist socialism. theyre so dumb they dont even know what spoon feeding means.

[storm of downvotes] this sub will survive the onslaught!

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/42511996

is this a bang link: exclamation point first, then link? i dont understand what this does different from a link, but someone said to use them !https://lemmy.world/c/A_new_socialism_communism / https://lemmy.world/c/A_new_socialism_communism (regular link without exclamation point)

is this a bang link: exclamation point first, then link? i dont understand what this does different from a link, but someone said to use them !https://lemmy.world/c/A_new_socialism_communism / https://lemmy.world/c/A_new_socialism_communism (regular link without exclamation point)

was the lack of freedom, the taking of freedom from everyone who didnt want marxism. my "new socialism/communism" seeks to rectify these problems, among other things. no one should have all their proper freedoms taken from them by marxism. marxism was mostly used as a source of mass populace abuse by gangster stalin, who was a straight up gangster before "getting into" politics (by realizing that politics was manipulatable the same way a street corner in a bad neighborhood is manipulatable- by using force behind the scenes to rough up and intimidate people to unfairly gain control. what stalin noticed about marxism was that it was insanely virulent (everyone poor loved the idea of it, the sound of it) and that it started with getting the people into it to immediately overthrow their own government and steal all its possessions and steal all the possessions of the richest class. right off the bat! then it recommended only a thinly-veiled straight up centralized fascism otherwise after that, so long as it was in the name of marxism. what a great thing, what a great tool, to use, for someone who just wanted sadistic control! if you dont know stalin, read a good stalin book or watch a good stalin documentary. an absolute crazy person who's never been fully explained. was either just extremely brutal or had some private insanities on top of that.

in a capitalism, "the workers", are already, absolutely, allowed to "own the fruits of their labors"- this is called the stock market, which marx and marxists have long misunderstood, and feared, the same way in which a screaming native who has never contacted the modern world will wave their spear threateningly at an airplane theyve never seen before, thinking its a "terror bird". the stock market is actually what allows workers to collectively own their companies, under capitalism, at least if it's any public company and many or most or the biggest companies tend to be public. the workers of a company, the workers in society in general, have never been prevented from owning stock in the companies they work for or in any other companies. what marxists further dont understand is that, THIS ISNT A GOOD DEAL NECESSARILY, EVEN- most companies fail- or, most companies' stock prices and/or dividends don't just go up and up and up endlessly or increase year after year. most companies fail!!!!!!!! it's reeeeeeeeeallly fricking hard to make money off the stock market!!! this is even true for the big professional institutions that only try to make money off the financial markets (the entire world of finance). i know this how? because im a fricking stock trader. i can tell you- i used to fear the stock market too- i didnt understand how it worked, and i thought the whole thing might be "conspiratorial". until i got into learning about it. whoooooa let me tell you the stock market is a regular thing. no conspiracy there. now who's the idiot? "people fear things (and hallucinate about things) they don't know". half of the modern toxic-ness of modern marxists is the conspiratorial garbage they've either cooked up or loosely believe. if you like conspiracies, and want to talk about real ones, please look at my other site, World Police. Oh there are real conspiracies by real politicians and "economists"- it's called organized crime, not all of capitalism/mercantilism/trade, automatically, as a whole. Also, certainly certain (what i would call) "rogue" governments or government-factions do pull conspiracies; currently being looked at on my other real-conspiracy-hunting-site are: the trump regime, the putin regime, and trump/putin regime connection. that's a pretty good one for now, and to start with, if you're into, and looking for that kind of thing.

either caused something horrible (think millions-killing famines), became something horrible (think the national socialist german workers party, stalin's soviet union, or stasi-controlled east germany), or turned capitalist to escape marxism. every single one of them. the modern "socialisms" are "democratic (non-marxist) socialisms" and they're actually all capitalisms, plain and simple. i mean the countries like canada or germany that have healthcare for everyone. those certainly arent marxist socialism/communisms, those are plain old capitalisms with some good pro-social policies. but all the marxist states? ooohhhhh toxic. they all went bad or got out of marxism. all of them. the only reason people still think this stuff is good is..... decades of soviet propaganda. anticapitalist (anti-west) (anti-united states) (the soviets' greatest enemy) propaganda. it was all just meant to attack and discredit the west. the problem within the west is that this propaganda was effective enough over time to enamor people with the sound of the concept; it seemed an exciting alternative to their dull, follow-the-herd lives otherwise.