Question at Ymir

[Anarch]

Your hostility towards fascism is noted, that said, I wish to pose a few questions in your direction.

What kind of world are you aiming for, Ymir? Mazdak, myself, Ixabert, Stan, 88mmFlaK, starr and other members are obvious about what we would like the world to be. Jcs is rather more ambiguous but I understand him well enough in any case.

You're a Marxist, I'm aware of that. But at the end of the road of dialectical materialism, actualised in various revolutions, what do you wish society to be like? What is your attitude towards the preservation of the various cultures of the west, and their peoples? Supposing marriage could be seperated from property rights, would your ideal society allow a man and a woman who intend to spend their lives together, breed and raise children, and wish to have marriage - a ritual they may consider sacred - will you have marriage as an institution in your ideal society? Do you see a connection between the Marxist-Leninnist ideals of free love and the licentiousness and erosion of the social order? Which do you prefer - license or perfection (and here I wish for you to define what you see as perfection, the abovementioned members are clear enough on what they wish), in your ideal society? Do you see the armament of the population as a good and proper thing, or something to be avoided, keeping in mind that a peoples revolution necessitates an armed people? Do you see the right of peoples to their own homelands, with the preservation of this right by force if necessary, as something which conflicts with your idea of internationalism?

This topic, I think, would be most enlightening.

[Billy Score]

Your hostility towards fascism is noted, that said, I wish to pose a few questions in your direction.

What kind of world are you aiming for, Ymir? Mazdak, myself, Ixabert, Stan, 88mmFlaK, starr and other members are obvious about what we would like the world to be. Jcs is rather more ambiguous but I understand him well enough in any case.

You're a Marxist, I'm aware of that. But at the end of the road of dialectical materialism, actualised in various revolutions, what do you wish society to be like? What is your attitude towards the preservation of the various cultures of the west, and their peoples? Supposing marriage could be seperated from property rights, would your ideal society allow a man and a woman who intend to spend their lives together, breed and raise children, and wish to have marriage - a ritual they may consider sacred - will you have marriage as an institution in your ideal society? Do you see a connection between the Marxist-Leninnist ideals of free love and the licentiousness and erosion of the social order? Which do you prefer - license or perfection (and here I wish for you to define what you see as perfection, the abovementioned members are clear enough on what they wish), in your ideal society? Do you see the armament of the population as a good and proper thing, or something to be avoided, keeping in mind that a peoples revolution necessitates an armed people? Do you see the right of peoples to their own homelands, with the preservation of this right by force if necessary, as something which conflicts with your idea of internationalism?

This topic, I think, would be most enlightening.
I asked this question in the francis parker yockey thread. However they are different enough to warrant having it here too.

[Anarch]

I know, it's what prompted me to make my own thread in the socialist paradise, given it's related to Ymir's own idea of his socialist paradise :)

[Leif]

Will answer in teh morning. There's only so much internet one can fit into a day, and that day just ended 55 minutes ago. :o

[Anarch]

You sod. You spent hours typing up that post and now decide you'll do it when you wake up? *shudders*

[Leif]

You're a Marxist, I'm aware of that. But at the end of the road of dialectical materialism, actualised in various revolutions, what do you wish society to be like?

I wrote alot about this when you first posted this question at 2AM (my time) but that is mostly garbled ramblings, which I will try to fix tonight and post. Basically, what I am for is a worker-run democratically organized association of peoples with "totalitarian" control over political, cultural, and economic public life. Economically idle classes, such as those who leech off the labor of others without contributing themselves or the bourgeois class as a whole, will be completely liquidized. There would be a definite line between the personal and public life, as the manufacture and distribution of items is dealt with by the public sphere, but ones use of an item and ones right to have ones own items for individual use are within the personal sphere. Hierarchy, as affirmed by Engels in his essay On Authority, will still exist unlike in anarchist theories. This is my "aim" which, while not an ideal society according to an individual's desire, is what I believe we are moving towards. I reject any ideas of a non-hierarchial and non-organized utopia out-of-hand as day-dreaming, even if they are desirable.

What is your attitude towards the preservation of the various cultures of the west, and their peoples?

Preservation of current cultures is not something I endorse. When society changes, the culture will be changed into something distinctly new. As for the people, I believe it is only those in the West that can take an active primary role in leading history to its next level, atleast in the beginning. I will have no regrets for such reactionary groups that want to cling onto their ephemeral "cultures," and like Marx, or perhaps it was Engels, I believe that certain reactionary groups will be entirely phased out of existence as coherent groups. Certain religious groups and ethnicities for example. That's not to say the revolution pays extra focus to these groups, but merely that some groups are so incompatible that their dissolution must occur under socialism.

Supposing marriage could be seperated from property rights, would your ideal society allow a man and a woman who intend to spend their lives together, breed and raise children, and wish to have marriage - a ritual they may consider sacred - will you have marriage as an institution in your ideal society?

Marriage will be a non-issue as there will be no property to inherit and breeding would be based upon ones love interests only. Society will have no legal concern for one's love affairs. If they want to hold a personal party or type of ceremony it won't be stopped, but there simply won't be a need for a formalization of relationships in regards to the legal system. Child-bearing is a different issue. So, no, marriage will not exist as an institution, but the hereditary records of people, that is their ancestry, will be kept in a database for medical reasons in case there is a risk of genetic disease or such.

Do you see a connection between the Marxist-Leninnist ideals of free love and the licentiousness and erosion of the social order?

A less formalized coupling standard will actually make for a more moral and incorrupt society, in that people will not be choosing mates based upon wealth, which is nationalized above a small personal level. Lines will be drawn between human affection which has no inherent harm to the participants, such as heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, and inherently damaging relationships such as pedophilia and misuse of public property, such as animals in bestiality. The social, that is public order has nothing to do with personal affection.

Which do you prefer - license or perfection (and here I wish for you to define what you see as perfection, the abovementioned members are clear enough on what they wish), in your ideal society?

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.

Do you see the armament of the population as a good and proper thing, or something to be avoided, keeping in mind that a peoples revolution necessitates an armed people?

Arming the populace, not only during times of revolutionary upheaval, but also during times of stability, is necessary for a safe and vigilant society. Things will be heavily centralized yes, but there must be precautions taken in case of corruption. Had the Chinese given instead of confiscated arms from the people, the communist hard-liners would have been able to overthrow the capitalist-roaders by being able to fall back upon the masses (which was their primary means of gaining support in the first place, and the primary vigilants that responded to Mao's call for a second revolution.)

Do you see the right of peoples to their own homelands, with the preservation of this right by force if necessary, as something which conflicts with your idea of internationalism?

I think self-determination is basically a non-issue now, as the vast majority of ethnic groups have their own states, and the ones that do not are usually those that are too insignificant to impose their desire for one. But in a socialist society, would there be multiple "peoples" with multiple "homelands?" No. There would be only one people and one homeland. As I said in the Yockey thread, multiculturalism is a burden, and it would be especially so under socialism. These different cultures will quickly assimilate into a new socialist one representing the political and economic developments of the time. Nationalism may be useful in the earlier stages of waging our revolution, as national parties may sometimes be better in touch with localized sentiments, and more capable of utilizing these sentiments in creating political movements. Once the socialist revolution has attained some safe-grounds and liberated territories it may begin an "internationalist" approach as it begins to incorporate more territories into itself, creating a new socialist association.

[Billy Score]

I am for the collectivization of the family only in the early stages in order to reeducate children according to the needs of the state. but after a generation or two, this no longer becomes necessary. I'll elaborate on this later.

[Ixtab]

I largely agree with you -- not, however, with your ethnic nihilism, which I find repugnant.
Expect a critique to-morrow.

and like Marx, or perhaps it was Engels, I believe that certain reactionary groups will be entirely phased out of existence as coherent groups. Certain religious groups and ethnicities for example. That's not to say the revolution pays extra focus to these groups, but merely that some groups are so incompatible that their dissolution must occur under socialism."Among all the nations and petty ethnic groups of Austria there are only three which have been the carriers of progress, which have played an active role in history and which still retain their vitality--the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. For this reason they are now revolutionary. The chief mission of all the other races and peoples--large and small--is to perish in the revolutionary holocaust."
-- Engels, "Der Magyarische Kampf"; translated as "Hungary and Panslavism" in Blackstock and Hoselitz

"It will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is progress."
-- Engels

"In the forties of the last century Marx supported the national movement of the Poles and the Hungarians and was opposed to the national movement of the Czechs and the Jugo-Slavs. Why? Because the Czechs and the Jugo-Slavs were 'reactionary nations' in Europe, outposts of absolutism; whereas the Poles and the Hungarians were 'revolutionary nations,' fighting against absolutism."
--Stalin, "Foundations of Leninism"

"The various demands of democracy ... are not absolute in themselves, but are particles of the general democratic (now general socialist) world movement. In certain concrete instances a particle may contradict the whole in which case it must be cast off.
--Lenin, quoted in "Foundations of Leninism"

[Leif]

The quotes by Engels were the ones I was thinking of, thank you for posting them.

[Anarch]

I wrote alot about this when you first posted this question at 2AM (my time) but that is mostly garbled ramblings, which I will try to fix tonight and post. Basically, what I am for is a worker-run democratically organized association of peoples with "totalitarian" control over political, cultural, and economic public life. Economically idle classes, such as those who leech off the labor of others without contributing themselves or the bourgeois class as a whole, will be completely liquidized. There would be a definite line between the personal and public life, as the manufacture and distribution of items is dealt with by the public sphere, but ones use of an item and ones right to have ones own items for individual use are within the personal sphere.

This is interesting. Is a man allowed to have sovereign right over what he produces by his own effort, and then trade it with others?

Hierarchy, as affirmed by Engels in his essay On Authority, will still exist unlike in anarchist theories. This is my "aim" which, while not an ideal society according to an individual's desire, is what I believe we are moving towards. I reject any ideas of a non-hierarchial and non-organized utopia out-of-hand as day-dreaming, even if they are desirable.

Sure. So political hierarchy not based on property - say, authority delegated to those with charisma and intelligence is perfectly compatible with your outlook. Ok.

Preservation of current cultures is not something I endorse. When society changes, the culture will be changed into something distinctly new. As for the people, I believe it is only those in the West that can take an active primary role in leading history to its next level, atleast in the beginning. I will have no regrets for such reactionary groups that want to cling onto their ephemeral "cultures," and like Marx, or perhaps it was Engels, I believe that certain reactionary groups will be entirely phased out of existence as coherent groups. Certain religious groups and ethnicities for example. That's not to say the revolution pays extra focus to these groups, but merely that some groups are so incompatible that their dissolution must occur under socialism.

Religious groups? Marx - and Lenin, in his State and Revolution - held to the idea that the State would eventually whither away. Given that organised religion is held to be part of the superstructure, derived from the economic structure, it seems reasonable to hold that religion, in time, will phase out of its own accord once of the socialist-communist revolutions are accomplished.

Marriage will be a non-issue as there will be no property to inherit and breeding would be based upon ones love interests only.

Marriage as a socially sanctioned coupling between two people of the opposite sex for the purpose of breeding and raising their offspring. It may very well be an issue.

Society will have no legal concern for one's love affairs.

This is pretty amusing, IMO. Socialism, last I heard, was about 'society'. If you're interested in licentious behaviour, such as the creation of bastard children, animal sex, faggotry and whatever else, why not drop the Marxism facade and go join the anarchists?

If they want to hold a personal party or type of ceremony it won't be stopped, but there simply won't be a need for a formalization of relationships in regards to the legal system. Child-bearing is a different issue. So, no, marriage will not exist as an institution, but the hereditary records of people, that is their ancestry, will be kept in a database for medical reasons in case there is a risk of genetic disease or such.

Marriage was formed for precisely the purpose of breeding and raising children into proper members of society.

A less formalized coupling standard will actually make for a more moral and incorrupt society, in that people will not be choosing mates based upon wealth, which is nationalized above a small personal level.

Very few people actually marry because they're gold-digging scum looking to secure and advance their inheritences, Ymir.

Lines will be drawn between human affection which has no inherent harm to the participants, such as heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, and inherently damaging relationships such as pedophilia and misuse of public property, such as animals in bestiality. The social, that is public order has nothing to do with personal affection.

It most certainly does. The public order is dependent upon individuals, and individuals are driven by interests they have as their own, Ymir.

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.

Licence = permissiveness. Ixabert and Mazdak have a solid idea of what I mean by 'perfection'. Cultivation of knowledge, power, the virtues, the beautiful.

Arming the populace, not only during times of revolutionary upheaval, but also during times of stability, is necessary for a safe and vigilant society. Things will be heavily centralized yes, but there must be precautions taken in case of corruption. Had the Chinese given instead of confiscated arms from the people, the communist hard-liners would have been able to overthrow the capitalist-roaders by being able to fall back upon the masses (which was their primary means of gaining support in the first place, and the primary vigilants that responded to Mao's call for a second revolution.)

This is true. It also leaves the people armed in order to counter the excesses of the revolutionary state.

I think self-determination is basically a non-issue now, as the vast majority of ethnic groups have their own states, and the ones that do not are usually those that are too insignificant to impose their desire for one.

This is false. The Kurds lack their own nation, and dozens of white countries are crippled and denied the right to control who immigrates into their countries and who isn't, by bureaucracies. The right of ethnic-states to determine who may and may not be a part of their nation is totally compatible with a confederation of socialist nations formed to overthrow the bourgeois, capitalist, reactionary orders.

But in a socialist society, would there be multiple "peoples" with multiple "homelands?" No. There would be only one people and one homeland.

This will not be supported by any nation on the planet. The exceptions may be a unification of the Anglo-Saxon nations, and for continental West Europe, and for east Europe to be a partial member of the West Europe federation.

As I said in the Yockey thread, multiculturalism is a burden, and it would be especially so under socialism. These different cultures will quickly assimilate into a new socialist one representing the political and economic developments of the time. Nationalism may be useful in the earlier stages of waging our revolution, as national parties may sometimes be better in touch with localized sentiments, and more capable of utilizing these sentiments in creating political movements. Once the socialist revolution has attained some safe-grounds and liberated territories it may begin an "internationalist" approach as it begins to incorporate more territories into itself, creating a new socialist association.

There is a fundamental difference between proletarian nationalism and bourgeois nationalism, Ymir. Proletarian nationalism means precisely the cooperation of various national proletariat's in favour of the world revolution. Bourgeois internationalism means the collapse of borders and ethnic states in order to facilitate the free movement of peoples.

[Leif]

This is interesting. Is a man allowed to have sovereign right over what he produces by his own effort, and then trade it with others?

The production of small crafts as a hobby will remain under the individual's control. I suppose if someone wanted to "trade" these crafts or give them as gifts to others he could do so, as long as he was fulfilling his obligated work with the state. If two neighbors produce fresh garden produce and handicrafts respectively, during their own leisure hours, the state would have no reason to stop them.

Religious groups? Marx - and Lenin, in his State and Revolution - held to the idea that the State would eventually whither away. Given that organised religion is held to be part of the superstructure, derived from the economic structure, it seems reasonable to hold that religion, in time, will phase out of its own accord once of the socialist-communist revolutions are accomplished.

Religious groups? Marx - and Lenin, in his State and Revolution - held to the idea that the State would eventually whither away. Given that organised religion is held to be part of the superstructure, derived from the economic structure, it seems reasonable to hold that religion, in time, will phase out of its own accord once of the socialist-communist revolutions are accomplished.

For clarification, the "nation," "union," or "association," of people I describe is not communism - but rather an advanced stage of socialism. Will the state & religion, as means of bourgeois class domination, eventually wither away? Most definitely. When I addressed certain ethnic and religious groups as mostly counter-revolutionary or "incompatible" with the socialist state, I mean groups that use parallel their ethnicity or religion with their politics and social practices to a point that integration would be difficult. Thus, they will fight socialism and be mostly destroyed by physical means, or if enough survive this, their integration will dissolve their social ties and they will quickly lose their identity. Examples of these would be religious fundamentalists, and certain ethnic groups which are so rabidly counter-revolutionary that their gene pool would almost totally dissipate due to their "extinction" and dispersion during their counter-revolutionary conflict.

Marriage as a socially sanctioned coupling between two people of the opposite sex for the purpose of breeding and raising their offspring. It may very well be an issue.

I mistyped - when I wrote "breeding" I meant sexual-intercourse, but not procreation, as that will have social "regulations." I am aware they are different words, I apologize for inter-changing them.

This is pretty amusing, IMO. Socialism, last I heard, was about 'society'.

Yes, 'society,' not personal life when one brushes ones teeth, what ones bowel movements are like, ones leisure practices and hobbies (assuming they aren't doing harm). If someone sits in the bathroom and masturbates on his lunch-break, and keeps himself sanitary by washing his hands, its not for the state to tell him to stop. With social obligation inextricably comes personal reward. It is no concern of the state whether someone spends half their lunchbreak sitting in the restroom masturbating. How can you morally prohibit an action that has no social consequences, and thus does no harm to society?

If you're interested in licentious behaviour, such as the creation of bastard children, animal sex, faggotry and whatever else, why not drop the Marxism facade and go join the anarchists?

There will be no bastards in the definition being that of a child with dubious parentage, as all ancestry will be put in a database, and if someone becomes pregnant without knowing the father, a DNA test will be applied. I suppose that some formal system for parentage will need to be established, probably using the biological parents, but if they aren't willing/able then another couple will be given the obligation of raising the child. And yes, having two adult parents of opposite sexes is best for raising a child, in that it [should] give[s] a good example of how two individual adults interact. All other socialization of children can be done at school, but one rarely sees instructors interact in that environment, and certainly not at an intimate level.

Animal sex will be prohibited on the same grounds as pedophilia, in that both animal and child have too underdeveloped of a rational mind to consent to sexual intercourse. Animals will never develop this, but establishing when an adolescent has achieved a "rational mind" is possible but difficult; it belongs in another debate, I would think.

Homosexuality, between two consenting individuals in their rational minds, would not be punished so long as there was no public lewdness involved, which would be prohibited as misuse of public property. I approach this, as I try with all else, with the question, "Does this harm society?" Homosexuality no more harms society than heterosexuality, as both have the potential for spreading sexually transmitted diseases. Those found to have such diseases will be quarantined for public safety.

Marriage was formed for precisely the purpose of breeding and raising children into proper members of society

Socialization will be done primarily outside of the home after the first few years of life, but two differently gendered adults would be required to socialize a child until then, even if they were not the biological parents, although it would be a sure thing that most biological parents would want to raise their children. Marriage, as we know it today, a thing done for love and sexual appetite, will not exist. The institution of parentage will become more primary, as two individuals that have a relationship, sexual or otherwise, will not be parents and are not obligated to live in the same house or otherwise do the things that married couples today do.

Very few people actually marry because they're gold-digging scum looking to secure and advance their inheritences, Ymir.

But how many multitudes marry because of the acquired collective income, or the general disapproval of those who are have sexual relationships but are not "married"?

It most certainly does. The public order is dependent upon individuals, and individuals are driven by interests they have as their own, Ymir.

Okay, prove to me that everything but heterosexual relations actively harms society.

Licence = permissiveness. Ixabert and Mazdak have a solid idea of what I mean by 'perfection'. Cultivation of knowledge, power, the virtues, the beautiful.

My idea of social perfection is doing good for the rest of society. Thus, private sexual relations have nothing to do with society, unless they result in procreation, which becomes a social, i.e. public relation. How do two homosexuals harm society by having sexual relations in their leisure time? The act in itself does not have any relation to society in the least.

This is false. The Kurds lack their own nation, and dozens of white countries are crippled and denied the right to control who immigrates into their countries and who isn't, by bureaucracies.

The Kurds are but one nationality. The fact that Western populations have become too submissive in regards to authority does not change the fact that they have their own ethnic states, except for the United States which has been multi-ethnic for centuries.

The right of ethnic-states to determine who may and may not be a part of their nation is totally compatible with a confederation of socialist nations formed to overthrow the bourgeois, capitalist, reactionary orders.

Compatible it may be, efficient it is not. Why bother creating a separate "nation" if that nation's economy and political system will be tied with that of its neighbors? To those that worry about the loss of their nation's genetic inheritance I must say, "Have sex, fools! It is no one but your own fault if you allow your genetic inheritance to dissappear!"

This will not be supported by any nation on the planet. The exceptions may be a unification of the Anglo-Saxon nations, and for continental West Europe, and for east Europe to be a partial member of the West Europe federation.

You may be right.

There is a fundamental difference between proletarian nationalism and bourgeois nationalism, Ymir. Proletarian nationalism means precisely the cooperation of various national proletariat's in favour of the world revolution. Bourgeois internationalism means the collapse of borders and ethnic states in order to facilitate the free movement of peoples.

You are correct in your distinction. However, it will be much easier for administrative purposes if an international union of peoples had a common language and culture. I believe this common culture will form slowly over time. The USSR promoted Russian, I believe, as it was the most common language among the people, and even those non-Russian speakers mostly spoke a slavic language of some sort.

[Billy Score]

On marriage and parenthood- I believe that at least the first few generations after the revolution or the empowerment should collectivize the family. Children should be raised according to what the state wants and needs and be raised to view the state as their parenthood. Their actual genology would be kept in the records of course. This way you can wipe away the traces of the modern man and his outlook within two or three generations. Its always been the case that youths raised by the state are fanatically loyal, even more so than some of those actually making the desicions.

This is necessary to eliminate undesirable wants that only exist in the modern world. However, after a few generations, the two (MOTHER AND FATHER) biological parents would begin raising children again. It would start on a small scale to see how well they intergrate into society. if it works then it is done on a widescale. Adoption would be permitted to morally upstanding HETEROSEXUAL couples.
The family is a good unit if the mother and father are competant and not willing to spread dissent and dangerous ideas to their children. If the mother and father are completely and fanatically loyal to the state, they would certainly instill this into their children without the state needing to supervise too closely.

[Berianidze]

On marriage and parenthood- I believe that at least the first few generations after the revolution or the empowerment should collectivize the family. Children should be raised according to what the state wants and needs and be raised to view the state as their parenthood. Their actual genology would be kept in the records of course. This way you can wipe away the traces of the modern man and his outlook within two or three generations. Its always been the case that youths raised by the state are fanatically loyal, even more so than some of those actually making the desicions.

This is necessary to eliminate undesirable wants that only exist in the modern world. However, after a few generations, the two (MOTHER AND FATHER) biological parents would begin raising children again. It would start on a small scale to see how well they intergrate into society. if it works then it is done on a widescale. Adoption would be permitted to morally upstanding HETEROSEXUAL couples.
The family is a good unit if the mother and father are competant and not willing to spread dissent and dangerous ideas to their children. If the mother and father are completely and fanatically loyal to the state, they would certainly instill this into their children without the state needing to supervise too closely.

I highly approve of this notion and give it my full endorsement comrade!