Controversial and/or Unpopular, Personal/Political opinions

Post Reply New Topic

I wish a lot more people smoked tobacco.

I support the death penalty and I believe all methods should be replaced by firing squad.

I support the legal right to own firearms, yet I believe people like me with a diagnosed mental illness should always be barred from owning them.

I am pro-choice when it comes to abortion. However I'm not necessarily pro-abortion though. I have mixed feelings but in the end the choice should be the woman's.

I am a homosexual but I really despise the term LGBTQ because I don't identify as a letter in a can of alphabet soup nor do I consider my sexuality to be my whole identity.

I think Gen Z calling Mellinials and Boomers "evil" is agism at its finest, and they've made collective narcissism masquerading as social justice into an art form.

I no longer respect modern feminism because it borders on misandry. I also hate abusers regardless of gender but I've known a few women who treat their husbands or boyfriends like total garbage and then whine to their friends about "The Patriarchy", and of course these men refuse to admit what goes on or talk about it out of fear of being shamed or dismiss by everyone around them. It's really disillisioned me...

Also I really hate both the Republicans and the Democrats these days.

everywhere talking faces, do people really not have any memory(card) any more, on top do they need a face to identify any word ?

[years and years ago -job testing, reading a thing while someone talks the same in your ears, but it wasn't the exact same, a version of the same (and in french, my 3 or 4th language, i need to read, but i couldn't read & then i know nothing about the subject (and on the job test they were also drilling outside the window where i was seated)
so the lady had the audacity to tell me i wasn't good at numbers, ok ok -you know best ]

these days undertakers and other sellers put their face in the ads as well, very progress if you ask me...
reading is out, let a voice talk in your head is the new you
every corner you turned in the museum a face starts to speak out of a wall, omg

in the same spirit
idolisation is what we're up against:
oh how these sportpersons or other unknown celebs get thrusted upon you

preferably the martyrs of the new world order,
a rosa parks hospital in france really, brainless virtue conforming at best
there wasn't anyone who suffered something in the french 'world' history?

- - - -

and no tax-avoiding by 'philantropy', be a 'philantrope' with your own money, not as a deducible

Your opinions are amazingly close to mine, except that I'm not gay so don't have a dog in that race.(although I greatly sympathize with what you said) and I don't actually hate Republicans and Democrats, I can simply no longer see any relevance in their existence.

That's very true, the Republicans and Democrats both became sell outs. It doesnt matter which side wins the presidency or any election anymore because they're both part of the problem . They spend more time manipulating voters than they do actually making lasting changes that will help the US. But hey? They have no real reason to care about the needs of the common folk. White or Black.

Also I like to believe that the majority of Americans are still reasonablr and really do have the same mixed opinions on what we want and dont want in our country as you and I do. The problem is that these days our voices are being drowned out by the extremists on both sides who are protected by the media and the internet and our votes don't hold as much weight as we once thought they did.

Rationality and Sanity has been tossed out the window...

The article SMASHING THE #1 MYTH OF THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT is just hasbara that completely shifts the burden of responsibility from the aggressors (Zionist thieves) and on to the people they've been murdering and stealing from (Palestinians).

The Zionist occupiers are colonial outsiders despite the author's attempt at pretending otherwise. A significant portion of them hold a second citizenship. To claim they have no where else to go is a flat-out lie.

The author just pukes up the same dishonest hasbara takes that Zionists have been offering for decades. Falling for the same tired old BS doesn't mean it's compelling, it means one is falling for having their biases reinforced.

If one wishes to support a genocidal ethno-state, all the power to them, but as long as Israel continues to be that it's supporters should be identified with the monstrosity they endorse. The moment Israel ceases to be that, it will cease to be Israel by it's supporters own admission.

Oh boy . Do you all really want to hear some of my hot takes ? If you do , then buckle up . Because if I weren't concerned about political correctness , and personal acceptance , I would be quite controversial , as to expressing my political ideals . For starters I prefer technocracy over democracy , and socialism over capitalism . And although I recognize that barracks communism is considered to be an ideological deviation , I am rather partial towards left-social authoritarianism / authoritarian democratic socialism .

Socialism should be nationalist.

If you don't love your nation, then what's the point of being a socialist?

How can workers of the world unite if they're distracted by national chauvinism?

The workers of the world will never unite if they do not first build socialist nations. There is a clear inequality of development worldwide that prevents international unification. Thus, socialism will best develop in one or several countries first before going on worldwide. Nationalism in Marxist sense is not the same as bourgeois nationalism that you concern of.

Marxist nationalism emphasizes the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat within a nation that has overthrown capitalism. Marxist nationalism is the most patriotic ambition one can ever think of. Building for the nation and for the proletariat within it, creating a divine example for other oppressed proletarians to rise up and do the same. We live in a world where international capital dominates and where the highest concentration of power is within the United States.

The bourgeoisie fear nationalism and no longer consider nationalism as vital. This is because they have seen decolonization in Africa, which led to independence of many African nations, which then, although forming a third bloc, have mostly aligned themselves with USSR in the past and China as of today. This is the anti-imperialism required and needed. Without it, socialism will never thrive in the face of international capital. To achieve international socialism is to begin with nationalism. Secede from the international capital first, build an united front against international capital, and upon success, only then can socialism declare international victory.

The great revolutionaries very much supported this!

"We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word."

• Karl Marx, Chapter 2, The Communist Manifesto, 1848

"The Social-Democratic Party’s recognition of the right of all nationalities to self-determination requires of Social-Democrats that they should."

• Vladimir Lenin, Theses on the National Question, 1913

"The right of self-determination means that only the nation itself has the right to determine its destiny, that no one has the right forcibly to interfere in the life of the nation, to destroy its schools and other institutions, to violate its habits and customs, to repress its language, or curtail its rights.

This, of course, does not mean that Social-Democracy will support every custom and institution of a nation. While combating the coercion of any nation, it will uphold only the right of the nation itself to determine its own destiny, at the same time agitating against harmful customs and institutions of that nation in order to enable the toiling strata of the nation to emancipate themselves from them."

• Iosif Stalin, Marxism and the National Question, 1913

"Therefore, it is in opposition to the practicality of the bourgeoisie that the proletarians advance their principles in the national question; they always give the bourgeoisie only conditional support. What every bourgeoisie is out for in the national question is either privileges for its own nation, or exceptional advantages for it; this is called being “practical”. The proletariat is opposed to all privileges, to all exclusiveness. To demand that it should be “practical” means following the lead of the bourgeoisie, falling into opportunism."

• Vladimir Lenin, Chapter 4, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1914

"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone."

• Vladimir Lenin, On the Slogan for a United States of Europe, 1915

"Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration? Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country."

• Stalin to Ivanov, On the Final Victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., 1938

"A man who is unconcerned about the destiny of his country and nation cannot be faithful to internationalism."

• Kim Jong Il, On Having a Correct Understanding of Nationalism, 1992

None of your quotes address my question directly.

Not to mention the deeds associated with Lenin, Stalin, Kim, etc.

The greatest accomplishments of the Leninists was to put socialism back by a hundred years.

The quotes were simply to support on why socialism and nationalism aren't mutually exclusive. The so-called "national chauvinism" you concern yourself with is a problem dealt by socialist understanding of nationalism, that is, rejection of bourgeois nationalism (chauvinism based on ethnicity or race) and promotion of a civil nationalism. Marxism defines a nation as a community of people, neither racial nor tribal. Neither are they conglomerates that just rise and then fall apart in a short time (or that simply exploit colonies they form abroad as was the case with the British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese).

A nation is a stable community of historically constituted people that form a common territory, a common language, a common economy, and a common culture. This is the Marxist concept of a nation and thus the most accepting concept to socialists. A nation which is not grounded in supremacy of ethnicity or race, but in a shared language, territory, economy, and culture irrespective of ethnicity or race. Yugoslavia under Tito was the socialist nation it ought to be. Four ethnic groups shared a common language and a common economy (only northern parts of Croatia and Serbia were more developed in contrast to the wider area of Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro).

You can read more from Stalin's "Marxism and the National Question" (1913) the first chapter on how a nation is defined and constituted properly.

"A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."

"It is possible to conceive of people possessing a common "national character" who, nevertheless, cannot be said to constitute a single nation if they are economically disunited, inhabit different territories, speak different languages, and so forth. Such, for instance, are the Russian, Galician, American, Georgian and Caucasian Highland Jews, who, in our opinion, do not constitute a single nation. It is possible to conceive of people with a common territory and economic life who nevertheless would not constitute a single nation because they have no common language and no common "national character." Such, for instance, are the Germans and Letts in the Baltic region."

"It is only when all these characteristics are present together that we have a nation."

Stalin also in this work pretty much criticized Bauer for his tribalistic view of a nation.

And what were/are the greatest accomplishments of the opponents?

1. Democratic reformist dogma which actually put socialism back by not a hundred but a thousand years probably.
2. Dogmatic condemnation of socialist states on the basis of how much authority the proletariat wielded, as they unanimously all reject (don't laugh) the dictatorship of the proletariat, a necessity for the development of a socialist, and thus, a communist society.
3. Rejection of theory based on age. The core concepts of socialism and communism, which would not have thrived if it weren't for Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and even Mao, have been rejected on the basis of their age and even constructed "infamy" they perceive of from these aforementioned revolutionaries. This characteristic very much deprived socialist potential from the "left" opposition.
4. Collaboration with the bourgeoisie has become vital for the opposition. In their sheer rejection of political theory, and dogmatic approval for "praxis", they've demolished socialism into a common liberal construction. Compromise after compromise they seek with the bourgeoisie, all while trying to democratically "replace" the capitalist system with the socialist one. In the process, they've become far less distinguishable from the bourgeoisie they've once so despised.

The opposition here has done damage tenfold in comparison to what you perceive from Marxism-Leninism.

I think Texas should require workman's comp for all private employers in the state.

How much power did the proletariat actually wield in any of the Leninist bureaucratic dictatorships? It sure seems like in practice all of the power was concentrated in the hands of party apparatchiks who neither represented the workers nor were able to be held responsible by the workers.

This is one of the core shortcomings of Leninism and why it inevitably ends up as something that would more fairly be described as red fascism than as anything resembling socialism. You can't have a state that's aligned with the workers interests if it's ran by a party with zero responsibility to the workers and that instead dictates to the workers what their interests are.

An inversion of democracy isn't democratic and the end result is just replacing one self-serving ruling class (capitalists, landlords and oligarchs) with another ruling class (apparatchiks and bureaucrats).

I firmly believe that once the MAGA cult destroys itself and all the old people clinging to power (including Trump) die out the younger far left crazies getting into power will destroy what's left of the US.

This feels to me like a repeat in history. A cross between the Soviets taking over East Germany after the Nazis were crushed in World War 2 and Mao Zedong manipulating China's naive young population into turning on their elders and academics, violently, during the Cultural Revolution.

I never believed this kind of BS could happen to my country.