- 17 Jan 2019 14:20
#14980795
Look, SSDR, I'd really prefer if you'd stop replying, and I've said the same earlier.
I'm not interested in validating or legitimizing your politics by treating you as a regular participant here, after your atrocious behavior in our exchanges up to this point.
I'm not twisting *anything* -- you're using a subtle form of character assassination with these baseless accusations of yours.
This is not an answer -- you're simply begging-the-question. 'Those who work for the ... administration' are obviously 'in', but we have no explanation for how *they* got-in or who, exactly, they answer to regarding their own professional behavior. Try again.
This illustrates the inherent *problematic* with your elitist-bureaucratic approach to a post-capitalist political economy -- you're unable to define how *authority* would be established, because your approach is *unrealistic* and *idealist* since it's just something you thought-up in a minute without any regard to potential *functioning*.
So you *do* want to be a strongman, Stalinist-type leader with ultimate authority. Nothing could be *further* from socialism. Note the elitist *secrecy* and lack of accountability to the public, too.
How exactly is 'everyone' to *have* administrative power, then? It takes more than just a one-line statement saying-so.
SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, I am not avoiding any political discussion. I am making responses to most of your statements or questions. YOU'RE avoiding the political discussion because you keep twisting words, your responses are not responding to what I am saying, and you're still not answering my question: Why are you a socialist? Is it that hard to answer?
Look, SSDR, I'd really prefer if you'd stop replying, and I've said the same earlier.
I'm not interested in validating or legitimizing your politics by treating you as a regular participant here, after your atrocious behavior in our exchanges up to this point.
SSDR wrote:
"Egomaniac, this isn't about *you* -- it's about your *politics*, and, no, I'm not trying to impress you." Well you keep twisting words, I never said that you were trying to impress me. You see how you're once again, twisting words.
I'm not twisting *anything* -- you're using a subtle form of character assassination with these baseless accusations of yours.
SSDR wrote:
"You omitted the 'And who *decides*...' line from your quoting -- you're not answering my questions, so I'm not going to answer *yours*, as in the next block:" Those who work for the socialist state/administration would decide who "gets in" and "gets out." Anyone can get in as long as they work, don't cause trouble, don't attempt to rebel, or cause terrorism such as planting bombs in subway stations. Now, answer mine.
This is not an answer -- you're simply begging-the-question. 'Those who work for the ... administration' are obviously 'in', but we have no explanation for how *they* got-in or who, exactly, they answer to regarding their own professional behavior. Try again.
This illustrates the inherent *problematic* with your elitist-bureaucratic approach to a post-capitalist political economy -- you're unable to define how *authority* would be established, because your approach is *unrealistic* and *idealist* since it's just something you thought-up in a minute without any regard to potential *functioning*.
SSDR wrote:
"So: How would your concept of 'administration' operate regarding its own membership and members?" In terms of who's in it, well the existing members would do various interviews, psychological tests, political tests, basic written assessments, and once the people who want to join pass, they then go through various trainings, and take lots of psychological lessons/classes so that they don't get corrupt. The members are confidential, NO ONE is famed, and no one is allowed to know who's in my socialist administration to protect their privacy and personal lives. Any member who gets corrupt, is abusive, or shows favouritism will be removed immediately.
So you *do* want to be a strongman, Stalinist-type leader with ultimate authority. Nothing could be *further* from socialism. Note the elitist *secrecy* and lack of accountability to the public, too.
SSDR wrote:
You've straight-out denied being a Stalinist, so how would this authoritarian-state-collectivism administration compose itself through time, into the future? Corruption and abuse will be prevented as much as possible. Anyone who abuses the administrative position in society, or anyone who abuses the socialist system in general, will be removed. You cannot change someone. If you try to change them, they will think that you're "brainwashing" them (just like how neo-Nazis think that socialists are brainwashing people through the ZOG, or how religious fundamentals think that socialists are brainwashing believers into worshipping a rebellious satan). Non socialists cannot live in a socialist society. They must be removed from the society, or else they could rebel or react against socialism, and cause crime (neo Nazi crime rising in the DDR during the 1980's).
The socialist state will make sure that everyone that has administrative power, is a socialist to the heart! Death to slavery. Long live freedom.
How exactly is 'everyone' to *have* administrative power, then? It takes more than just a one-line statement saying-so.