Bruhmant totalitarian avantgardist tendency and tactics BETA version v.02

=The ABCs=

What is to be noted?
This ideology isn't really an ideology, its more of a set of beliefs that Nguyenreich, the maker of this page believes in. The main basis for this self-insert is that a dictatorship of the proletariat must be led by workers' councils and the belief of organization of society according to the ideas of council organization.

Why councils?
Councils are the form of organization during the transition period in which the working class is fighting for dominance, is destroying capitalism and is organizing social production. The councils' system destroys and sets aside the old bureaucratic-centralist organisational system, the capitalist state, the profit economy, bourgeois ideology. It creates and forms the framework of the new social order, the communal economy, the federation of proletarian forces for the new cultural construction, and socialist ideology. Since the councils combine the tasks of management and execution, and since the delegates themselves must carry out the decisions they make, there is no place for bureaucrats or career politicians, both of which are denizens of the institutions of bourgeois State power.

Councils' system
The council system is a state organization without the bureaucracy of permanent officials which makes the State an alien power separate from the people. The council system realizes Friedrich Engels' assertion that government over people will give way to administration over things. Official posts (which are always necessary for administration) which are not especially crucial will be accessible to anyone who has undergone an elementary training program. The higher administration is in the hands of elected delegates, subject to immediate recall, who are paid the same wage as a worker. It could happen that during the transition period this principle may not be totally and consistently implemented, since the necessary abilities will not be found in every delegate all the time. The collaborating workers act as unities and designate their delegates under the basis of direct democracy within the factories. Because they have common interests and belong together in the praxis of daily life, they can send some of them as delegates and spokesman. Complete democracy is realized here by the equal rights of everyone who takes part in the work. Of course, whoever does not work shall not have a voice. Factory organisation and Councils' organisation are sustained and dominated by the principle of the councils' system.

Factory organisation
The factory organisation elects from itself a number of shop delegates deemed necessary accordingly to its size and type of factory. They embody the particular workers' council, which has to regulate all matters in agreement with the members. The delegates are to stand at a new election every quarter. Re-election is permissible. Every member is eligible. If several Council members are employed in one factory, they have a duty to create a factory organisation. Individual members organise first of all according to groups of industries or living areas, as also with relations between small factories. Autonomous small-scale firms organise themselves by dwelling areas. The area groups bear the character of interim organisations insofar as every member in one has to withdraw as soon as the conditions cited above are present for the founding of a factory organisation of its own in his factory.

Councils' organisation
Every factory organisation, or dwelling area or industry group has to send at least one delegate to the local Heads-of-Councils. Larger groups can send several delegates. Their number can be regulated from time to time according to a uniform schedule adapted to practical considerations. These organisations together form a local councils' group in a given place. All the local groups in a certain economic area form together an economic district. The local groups elect from among themselves a district economic council. Conferences arising from necessity are to be called by the district economic council whenever the situation at the time makes impossible a previously customary understanding among local groups. National conferences are to be dealt with likewise. Every local district group has the duty of being represented at the district conference. At least once a year a national conference has to take place at which all the economic districts must be represented. The national conference elects a national economic council. Its character and its duties correspond to those of the district economic council, only with the difference that its activity extends over the state. All the delegates of an individual factory organisation are recallable at any time.

Corruption?
As for the delegates, you may think that they are indifferent messenger boys passively carrying letters or messages of which they themselves know nothing. They took part in the discussions, they stood out as spirited spokesmen of the prevailing opinions. They are now chosen as delegates of this group. If one were to be accused of corruption, the council can easily dismiss them at any given time.

On the question of homosexuality and sexual minorities
With the eradication of bourgeois institutions, this also means the total destruction of gender norms and heteronormativity being shattered. Only through this way will sexual liberation finally be achieved. Transgender individuals will be able to fullfil what they want through the legalization of gender re-assignment surgery and shall be able to change legal gender at any time.

The National question
The inability to achieve on an international scale what has been achieved, or is in the process of being achieved, on the national level-partial or complete elimination of capital competition-permits the continuation of class antagonisms in all countries despite the elimination or restriction of private capital formation. To state it the other way around: because nationalization of capital leaves class relations intact, there is no way of escaping competition on the international scene. Just as control over the means of production assures the maintenance of class divisions, so does control over the national state, which includes control over its means of production. The defense of the nation and its growing strength becomes the defense and reproduction of new ruling groups. The “love for the socialist fatherland” in Communist countries, the desire for a “stake in the country,” as exemplified in the existence of “socialist” governments in welfare-economies, as well as national self-determination in hitherto dominated countries, signifies the existence and rise of new ruling classes bound to the existence of the national state. WHILE a positive attitude toward nationalism betrays a lack of interest in socialism, the socialist position on nationalism is obviously ineffective in countries fighting for national existence as well as in those countries oppressing other nations. If only by default, a consistent anti-nationalist position seems to support imperialism. However, imperialism functions for reasons of its own, quite independently of socialist attitudes toward nationalism. Furthermore, socialists are not required for the launching of struggles for national autonomy as the various “liberation” movements in the wake of the second World War have shown. Contrary to earlier expectations, nationalism could not be utilized to further socialist aims, nor was it a successful strategy to hasten the demise of capitalism. On the contrary, nationalism destroyed socialism by using it for nationalist ends. It is not the function of socialism to support nationalism, even though the latter battles imperialism. But to fight imperialism without simultaneously discouraging nationalism means to fight some imperialists and to support others, for nationalism is necessarily imperialist – or illusory. To support Arab nationalism is to oppose Jewish nationalism, and to support the latter is to fight the former, for it is not possible to support nationalism without also supporting national rivalries, imperialism, and war. To be a good Indian nationalist is to combat Pakistan; to be a true Pakistani is to despise India. Both these newly “liberated” nations are readying themselves to fight over disputed territory and subject their development to the double distortion of capitalist war economies. And so it goes on: the “liberation” of Cyprus from British rule only tends to open a new struggle for Cyprus between Greeks and Turks and does not lift Western control from either Turkey or Greece. Poland’s “liberation” from Russian rule may well spell war with Germany for the “liberation” of German provinces now ruled by Poland and this, again, to new Polish struggles for the “liberation” of territory lost to Germany. Real national independence of Czechoslovakia would, no doubt, reopen the fight for the Sudetenland and this, in turn, the struggle for Czechoslovakia’s independence and perhaps for that of the Slovaks from the Czechs. With whom to side? With the Algerians against the French? With the Jews? With the Arabs? With both? Where shall the Jews go to make room for the Arabs? What shall the Arab refugees do to cease being a “nuisance” to the Jews? What to do with a million French “colons” who face, when Algerian liberation is accomplished, expropriation and expulsion? Such questions can be raised with reference to every part of the world, and will generally be answered by Jews siding with Jews, Arabs with Arabs, Algerians with Algerians, French with French, Poles with Poles and so forth-and thus they will remain unanswered and unanswerable. However Utopian the quest for international solidarity may appear in this melee of national and imperialist antagonisms, no other road seems open to escape fratricidal struggles and to attain a rational world society. ALTHOUGH socialists sympathies are with the oppressed, they relate not to emerging nationalism but to the particular plight of twice-oppressed people who face both a native and foreign ruling class. Their national aspirations are in part “socialist” aspirations, as they include the illusory hope of impoverished populations that they can improve their conditions through national independence. Yet national self-determination has not emancipated the laboring classes in the advanced nations. It will not do so now in Asia and Africa. National revolutions, as in Algeria for instance, promise little for the lower classes save indulging on more equal terms in national prejudices. No doubt, this means something to the Algerians, who have suffered from a particularly arrogant colonial system. But the possible results of Algerian independence are deducible from those in Tunisia and Morocco, where existing social relations have not been changed and the conditions of the exploited classes have not improved to any significant extent. Unless socialism is altogether a mirage, it will rise again as an international movement-or not at all. In any case, and on the basis of past experience, those interested in the rebirth of socialism must stress its internationalism most of all. While it is impossible for a socialist to become a nationalist, he is nevertheless an anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist. However, his fight against colonialism does not imply adherence to the principle of national self-determination, but expresses his desire for a non-exploitative, international socialist society. While socialists cannot identify themselves with national struggles, they can as socialists oppose both nationalism and imperialism. For example, it is not the function of French socialists to fight for Algerian independence but to turn France into a socialist society. And though struggles to this end would undoubtedly aid the liberation movement in Algeria and elsewhere, this would be a by-product of and not the reason for the socialist fight against nationalist imperialism. At the next stage, Algeria would have to be “de-nationalized” and integrated into an international socialist world.

Communism and progressivism
For one to think communism, or if you want, socialism, is compatible with conservatism, they would obviously be just as stupid as those who would take 10 tubules to poison themselves. The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations, there is absolutely no question that the development of communism also involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. Do we have to quote the German Ideology again? "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things."

Strikes
The strongest form of fight against the capitalist class is the strike. Strikes are more than ever necessary against the capitalists' tendency to increase their profits by lowering wages and increasing the hours or the intensity of work. Trade unions have been formed as instruments of organized resistance, based on strong solidarity and mutual help. With the growth of big business capitalist power has increased enormously, so that only in special cases are the workers able to withstand the worsening of their working conditions. The Trade Unions grow into instruments of mediation between capitalists and workers; they make treaties with the employers which they try to force upon the often unwilling workers. The leaders aspire to become a recognized part of the power structure of capital and State dominating the working class; the Unions grow into instruments of monopolist capital, by means of which it dictates its terms to the workers.

Praxis
Consider this. At the beginning the opposing ideologies inspires most confidence. However slowly but surely, the tactics of the opposing ideology are proven false, the faith of the workers within that ideology falls. The politics of the communists are confirmed. The 20 communists will become 50 and then 100 and more. It is from such communist groups in the factories, from mass sections of communists in the economic regions that the new communist movement through the council system will come into being. The aim is to seize hold of the commanding levers of industry for the process of social production and so to decisively carry the day in revolutionary combat, to seize hold of the lever that will let the air out of the capitalist system in entire industrial regions and branches. The last thing to do here would be to seize the political superstructure as the economy is now under the hands of the workers.

As for how the economy is planned?
The computers shall aggregate information, which the enterprise councils in co-ordination with workers councils' can use in order to formulate an economy-wide plan. The plan shall be decided and implemented through direct democracy within the councils.

Work, and the right to be lazy.
We stand by what Platos talked about the abhorrence of work. "Nature has made no shoemaker nor smith. Such occupations degrade the people who exercise them." At the moment, production in every enterprise is conducted by individual capitalists on their own initiative. What, and in which way is to be produced, where, when and how the produced goods are to be sold is determined by the employer. The workers do not see to all this, they are just living machines who have to carry out their work. In a socialist economy this will be completely different! The private employer will disappear. Then no longer production aims towards the enrichment of one individual, but of delivering to the public at large the means of satisfying all its needs. One great contribution of the Technocrats is the Technocratic Calendar. Every citizen would work for four hours, followed with three days off work. What's the weekend effect? It is a phenomenon where production in the country decreases massively as a result of all workers stopping work in the weekend. It is clear that the factories shall follow this model, through tilting the days and work hours of these factories shall we be able to get rid of this weekend effect. This would increase efficiency. As the working class forges a brazen law forbidding any person to work more than four hours a day, the earth, the old earth, trembling with joy would feel a new universe leaping within her. 0 Laziness, have pity on our long misery! O Laziness, mother of the arts and noble virtues, be thou the balm of human anguish!

The family and education.
Unlike some certain socialists you MIGHT know in the wiki(not naming any names), you may notice that I have a massive disdain for the family. When you look to the origin of the family, you may see that the family and its forms have developed throughout the ages. This obviously means that the current family model was created by economic forces, and merely the latest manifestation of the family. So why do I hate the family? The answer relies on the basis for the bourgeois family, which is of course, capital. As you may see, this state of things, in its completely developed form, only exists for the bourgeoisie. There is an absence of the family among the proletarians. The bourgeois clap-trap on family values, traditions and relations between the parent and the child becomes far more rephrensible with modern technology. All the family ties among proletarians are torn down as their children become nothing but living machines who have to carry out their work in order to accumulate capital for their boss. And not to mention home education. The bourgeoisie screeches en masse as we reveal our intentions to replace homeschooling, private schooling with public schooling. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime shall we plead guilty. To summarise, the intentions of us communists are: to destroy the family, to alter the character of the intervention in education, along with to rescue education from the grips of the ruling class.

The role of the party
So what role shall the party play in a councilist revolution? It shall create revolutionary factory organizations.It shall promote the goals of the councils. Factory by factory, industry by industry it will organise the revolutionary masses. They will be prepared for the onslaught, given the power for decisive combat, until the last resistance offered by capitalism as it collapses is overcome. It will inspire the fighting masses with confidence in their own strength, the guarantee for victory in that confidence will free them ambitious and traitorous leaders.

Why are you against trade unions?
We can never seriously think of denying the great value the trade unions have had for the proletariat as a means of struggle in the defence of workers' interests. But all this is today, unfortunately, testimonials and claims to fame which belong to the past. When the trade unions fought against the capitalist class for better working conditions, the capitalist class hated them, but it had not the power to destroy them completely. If the trade unions would try to raise all the forces of the working class in their fight, the capitalist class would persecute them with all its means. They may see their actions repressed as rebellion, their offices destroyed by militia, their leaders thrown in jail and fined, their funds confiscated. On the other hand, if they keep their members from fighting, the capitalist class may consider them as valuable institutions, to be preserved and protected, and their leaders as deserving citizens. So the trade unions find themselves between the devil and the deep blue sea; on the one side persecution, which is a tough thing to bear for people who meant to be peaceful citizens; on the other side, the rebellion of the members, which may undermine the unions. The capitalist class, if it is wise, will recognize that a bit of sham fighting must be allowed to uphold the influence of the labor leaders over the members. The conflicts arising here are not anyone's fault; they are an inevitable consequence of capitalist development. Capitalism exists, but it is at the same time on the way to ruin. It must be fought as a living thing, and at the same time, as a transitory thing. The workers must wage a steady fight for wages and working conditions, while at the same time communistic ideas, more or less clear and conscious, awaken in their minds. They cling to the unions, feeling that these are still necessary, trying now and then to transform them into better fighting institutions. But the spirit of trade unionism, which is in its pure form a capitalist spirit, is not in the workers. The divergence between these two tendencies in capitalism and in the class struggle appears now as a rift between the trade union spirit, mainly embodied in their leaders, and the growing revolutionary feeling of the members. This rift becomes apparent in the opposite positions they take on various important social and political questions. Trade unionism is bound to capitalism; it has its best chances to obtain good wages when capitalism flourishes. So in times of depression it must hope that prosperity will be restored, and it must try to further it. To the workers as a class, the prosperity of capitalism is not at all important. When it is weakened by crisis or depression, they have the best chance to attack it, to strengthen the forces of the revolution, and to take the first steps towards freedom. With the enormous increases of capital in modern times, colonies and foreign countries are being used as places in which to invest large sums of capital. They become valuable possessions as markets for big industry and as producers of raw materials. A race for getting colonies, a fierce conflict of interests over the dividing up of the world arises between the great capitalist states. In these politics of imperialism the middle classes are whirled along in a common exaltation of national greatness. Then the trade unions side with the master class, because they consider the prosperity of their own national capitalism to be dependent on its success in the imperialist struggle. For the working class, imperialism means increasing power and brutality of their exploiters. These conflicts of interests between the national capitalisms explode into wars. World war is the crowning of the policy of imperialism. For the workers, war is not only the destruction of all their feelings of international brotherhood, it also means the most violent exploitation of their class for capitalist profit. The working class, as the most numerous and the most oppressed class of society, has to bear all the horrors of war. The workers have to give not only their labour power, but also their health and their lives. Trade unions, however, in war must stand upon the side of the capitalist. Its interests are bound up with national capitalism, the victory of which it must wish with all its heart. Hence it assists in arousing strong national feelings and national hatred. It helps the capitalist class to drive the workers into war and to beat down all opposition. Trade unionism abhors communism. Communism takes away the very basis of its existence. In communism, in the absence of capitalist employers, there is no room for the trade union and labour leaders. It is true that in countries with a strong socialist movement, where the bulk of the workers are socialists, the labour leaders must be socialists too, by origin as well as by environment. But then they are right-wing socialists; and their socialism is restricted to the idea of a commonwealth where instead of greedy capitalists honest labour leaders will manage industrial production. Trade unionism hates revolution. Revolution upsets all the ordinary relations between capitalists and workers. In its violent clashings, all those careful tariff regulations are swept away; in the strife of its gigantic forces the modest skill of the bargaining labour leaders loses its value. With all its power, trade unionism opposes the ideas of revolution and communism.

Is reformism an option?
Wherever workers wanted to go into action they were eagerly countered every time by party and trade union officials with the call: "Not too violent! No bloodshed! Be reasonable! Let us negotiate!" As negotiations were resorted to, instead of grabbing the enemy and throwing him to the ground, the bourgeoisie was saved. Negotiation is after all their method of carrying on politics, and on their fighting terrain they are at their most secure. Wanting to carry on proletarian politics in the home of the bourgeoisie and with their methods means sitting down at the capitalists' table, eating and drinking with them, and betraying the interests of the proletariat. It is clearly evident that the reformists seek nothing but the preservance of the bourgeoisie.

Permanent Revolution
By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all major countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany. It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces.It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace. It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

Petit-bourgeois, or market "socialism"
One of the arguments for this form of "socialism" is a cooperative-run society. Let us now diagnose the nature of cooperatives. Coops operate according to capitalist laws of surplus value extraction of their waged workers, commodity production, and exchange, etc. no matter how collective the decision-making gets nor how ‘fairly’ workers are remunerated for their labor-power and its products in them. Similar to unions, the workers may come to associate themselves physically as a collective body in some way through a coop, but coops essentially embody counter-revolutionary class compromise by falsely associating the proletariat and bourgeoisie and their class interests together (more schizophrenically than unions I might add). Thus, the very critique of this form of management remains necessary. Let's not forget the class of the petit-bourgeoisie either, the very class which market socialists fetishize. Petty proprietors, whether they are peasants who live off their land or the petit bourgeois small business owner, are holdovers of a backwards mode of production whose existence is undermined daily by capital. Petty proprietors take isolated production as its basis, something that capitalism has undermined. This undermining of isolated production, however, is a progressive move on the part of capital and sets the stage for socialism. It is in the interest of the petty proprietor to maintain their isolated existence and generalize it rather than to do away with it in favor of socialized production, as the proletarian demands. Petty proprietors formed an essential component of early capital accumulation, and they still do as a decaying class as smaller firms and peasant holdings are bought up by capitalists when they fail. Generalizing the condition of the petty proprietor simply turns back the clock on capital rather than properly doing away with it. Even this turning back of the clock is a reactionary tendency that refuses to confront capital and instead seeks comfort in a bygone past.

Commodity production and wage labour under market socialism
Of course, we must analyse the basis the commodity first, before making any judgement on the economic basis of this form of socialism too. Commodities come into the world in the shape of use-values, articles, or goods. This is their plain, homely, bodily form. They are, however, commodities, only because they are something twofold, both objects of utility, and, at the same time, depositories of value. They manifest themselves therefore as commodities, or have the form of commodities, only in so far as they have two forms, a physical or natural form, and a value form. If we say that, as values, commodities are mere congelations of human labour, we reduce them by our analysis, it is true, to the abstraction, value; but we ascribe to this value no form apart from their bodily form. It is otherwise in the value relation of one commodity to another. Here, the one stands forth in its character of value by reason of its relation to the other. The simplest value relation is evidently that of one commodity to some one other commodity of a different kind. Hence the relation between the values of two commodities supplies us with the simplest expression of the value of a single commodity. We know that surplus-value is part of a commodity, for surplus-value is the accumulated product of the unpaid labour time of the producers. In bourgeois society, surplus value is acquired by the capitalist in the form of profit: the capitalist owns the means of production as Private Property, so the workers have no choice but to sell their labour-power to the capitalists in order to live. The capitalist then owns not only the means of production, and the workers’ labour-power which he has bought to use in production, but the product as well. After paying wages, the capitalist then becomes the owner of the surplus value, over and above the value of the workers’ labour-power. The capitalist may increase the surplus value they gain through two methods. Through absolute surplus value(extending the working day), or relative surplus value(cutting wages) Attempts by individual capitalists to increase their profits by introducing machinery or speeding-up production by technique fail as soon as their competitors copy the new technique and restore their market share. The end effect of these improvements in production may be to increase the productivity of labour, but unless the rate of surplus value is increased proportionately, the rate of profit will actually fall. Why is this all important to the critique of market socialism? You shall see soon. The commodity of the workers, known as labor-power, the workers exchange for the commodity of the capitalist, for money, and, moreover, this exchange takes place at a certain ratio. So much money for so long a use of labor-power. For 12 hours' weaving, two shillings. And these two shillings, do they not represent all the other commodities which I can buy for two shillings? Therefore, actually, the worker has exchanged his commodity, labor-power, for commodities of all kinds, and, moreover, at a certain ratio. By giving him two shillings, the capitalist has given him so much meat, so much clothing, so much wood, light, etc., in exchange for his day's work. The two shillings therefore express the relation in which labor-power is exchanged for other commodities, the exchange-value of labor-power. As I have mentioned before, cooperatives still extract the labor-power from workers. If that was not the case, then their rate of profit would obviously fall. Hence, the workers have been scammed of the true value of their labour. On the other hand, the law of capitalist production has not changed at all. This time, the only difference is that they actually have to pretend to be nice to workers now. Through this, we have exposed the sly dogs of so-called market "socialism", who in reality, only seek to change the form of exploitation. =How to learn more about Marxism?= I recommend you to read the following stuff so you can get an understanding of Marxism and Council Communism:
 * Continuation
 * Principles of Communism
 * Communist Manifesto
 * Wage Labour and Capital
 * Capital Volume 1
 * Capital Volume 2
 * Capital Volume 3
 * Critique of the Gotha Programme
 * Marxism and Darwinism
 * Marxist Theory and Revolutionary Tactics
 * Moscow and ourselves
 * Open Letter to Comrade Lenin
 * The Lessons of the March Action
 * The Revolution is not a party affair
 * World Revolution and Communist Tactics
 * The New Blanquism
 * From the Bourgeois to the Proletarian Revolution
 * Communism and Religion
 * The Intellectuals
 * Lenin as philosopher
 * Party and Class
 * Worker's Councils
 * Natonalism and Socialism

Relationships
(May the reader be reminded that this is mostly based on politics, not personal stuff.)
 * -|Self Inserts=

Allies
- We have no differing views at all. - Actively gets rid of Hoppeans. - Great ideas, but are technates really the same thing as councils? Also I am against Syndicalism and Technocracy so theres that. - Cool ideas, but I will tell ya something. Mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc. Hope you can draw a conclusion to historical materialism through this. - There is not much to criticize here, however, you shouldn't be so sympathizing with red capitalists. - Who are you exactly? Nonetheless you seem to have some good ideas, drop the syndicalism though. - You have some good ideas. However, drop the anarchism. Ultroneism - We haven't met yet, so there is not much to say here. However, judging from your page, you seem quite promising. - Reject post-leftism, return to ultra-leftism. - Consider the following - Reject market socialism.

Neutral
- hello brown homosexual [Citation needed] - I still do not know you properly. Also, tad too libertarian. - I don't know how to feel about you. - ^ - why ye love liberalism so much - I am sure that you probably haven't read Marx at all, considering that you think the iron law of wages is a Marxist thing. Anyways, the hell of capitalism is not that the firm has a boss, but that it has a firm. Read Capital and Grundrisse, along with Anti-Duhring. - You are almost there! Reject the welfare state and embrace the red tide! - Surely, the best form of a bourgeois state is a democratic republic. But that does not mean that we will dismiss the inherent exploitation in it.(also you are a stinky keynesian, pls read mattick) - What did Friedman mean when he said that the US credit data was wrong? - We may not be enemies personally, but that doesn't shield you from criticism. (these criticisms include capitalism, overall restriction on the internet and free speech, and how elections are organized)

Enemies
- Did you really need to put that much idealism and bureaucratic centralism into your ideology? Also your paper on economics sucks. - why are you like this - Banning shit doesn't mean the problem is solved + You aren't a real socialist. - Damn you really are nasty. - We aren't exactly enemies but dawg why are your politics so much of a dumpster fire. Pan-Voluntaryism - Do you know how easy is it for someone to overthrow your system? - You emphasize on the importance of the family, but where is the most developed structure of it in the proletarian class? And not to forget, you claim that Marxism doesn't recognize human nature, but you think of human nature as inherently fixed, but where is this claim based off? Humans were originally not political, but now they are. So how can one claim that it is fixed? - The vanguardist methods of revolution and socialism is out of the question for this world, for the international proletariat. We oppose them. Absolutely. Categorically. They would be a calamity. More than this, they would be a crime. They would lead to ruin. - Aren't you and the guy above nearly the same being? Also, you probably don't know what the "New Left" actually is. - First as a tragedy.... - Second as a farce. - Literal opposite of what I am. - May the reader permit us to take leave of our subject, which has often been dry and gloomy enough, on a note of facetiousness and reconciliation. So long as we had to deal with the separate issues raised, our judgment was bound by the objective, incontrovertible facts, and on the basis of these facts it was often enough necessarily sharp and even hard. Now when philosophy, economics and socialitarian system all lie behind us; when we have before us the picture of the author as a whole, which we had previously to judge in detail — now human considerations can come into the foreground; at this point we shall be permitted to trace back to personal causes many otherwise incomprehensible scientific errors and conceits, and to sum up our verdict against Mr. Renaud Beaulieu in the words: mental incompetence due to megalomania. - You aren't a based English Socialist Orwellian warrior from Airstrip One. You live in Britain!
 * -|Actually real ideologies=

Great
- One of the greatest living thinkers of the 19th century, perhaps the greatest. - Indeed, the revolution can only be led by councils of workers. - You shall always remain as martyrs within the hearts of all socialists across the world. - Abolition of gender? Seems fine to me!

Neutral
- Yes, you were right on what socialism is. No, this doesn't justify the expulsion of the KAPD from the Comintern. - If “Cobain's death confirmed the defeat and incorporation of rock's utopian and promethean ambitions”, Fisher's suicide reaffirms the real powerlessness of any perspective of criticism of capitalism that is not based on solid pillars such as criticism of political economy, the materialist conception of history, the experiences of past class struggles and the communist revolutionary programme that derives from them.

Horrible
- The revolution is not a party affair. - No proper dialectics? Also, here's the answer as to why your so-called socialism failed. - YOU SHOULD KYS NOW! - The events of 1919 has shown the true colours of the Social Democrats. We now know where they TRULY belong.

Further Info
2) I will admit that I only have a basic understanding of Hegelian(and Maoist, which is just pure garbage) dialectics.
 * - Didn't see a comment section so I made one, and I don't really want to join the polcompball discord also known as garbageville to ask two questions. A) Add please, and I'll do the same next time I have the energy to edit my page. B) How educated are you on dialectics? (outside of Marx) because I would love to have a convo.
 * [[File:NguyenreichismIcon.png]] Nguyenreich - 1) Alright then.
 * - Add me?
 * - Add me please
 * [[File:HelloThere314Icon.png]] - Add me? I'll do the same when I get around to it.
 * - Add me?