Lets create the actually ideology of English socialism

...

It sure is serious about something. The only question if Holla Forums is serious about anything anyone besides Holla Forums would be serious about.

I guess that's to be expected from George "totally not a liberal" Orwell.

They aren't the same but you have to admit they used the same totally tyrannically force to achieve there goals. George Orwell was against all forms of tyranny. From the left or right.

Socialism with English Characteristics.

A tea bag in every cup, and a fire under every kettle. Truly, this is progress!

...

What is it with the whole socialism with X characteristics.

It's China's way of saying "nah we're definitely not capitalist as fuck now dude"

Memes, son.

Virgins

That's such a silly quote. Nazis never envisioned a "paradise where human beings would be free and equal." They envisioned a state of constant war and a struggle for survival between races under the guidance of the omnipresent and totalitarian state and party. This is exactly one of the main differences between the Reich and the USSR: the USSR claimed to be working towards some mythical future where everything would have been made worth it retroactively, whilst the Reich reveled in the crimes they committed as part of the perfect state they sought to establish.

There can't be one, 1984 is a stupid strawman where people literally do things for the sake of being evil cunts. Real people like to have some sort of purpose beyond just being a dick. Look at Holla Forums. They aren't just sitting there, "Boy, I sure love murdering people at random and instituting dystopian dictatorships." No, they dress it up in terms of protecting the race, saving the culture, defending against the violent blacks and leftists… Orwell had all the subtlety of a sledge hammer in this book.

Why bother
Anglos are hopeless

...

UPHOLD MARXISM-LENINISM-SITH LORD THOUGHT

What's with all these trots
Big Brother did nothing wrong, wrongthinkers deserved it

Yea, these people are such sectarian splitters. We can sort out your differences of opinion with Big Brother after we defeat the bourgeoisie, okay?

...

Except if you were German the Nazis promised you literally world domination and a 1000 year Reich that would rule the untermensch and make the German people proud and prosperous. They still promised the same utopian crap it was just limited to Germans.

That only works if you're spooked to all hell and live vicariously through your Dear Leader. The upper party official and industrialists would rule the world; you'd be stuck as some "warrior-farmer" fighting Slavic guerillas in the depopulated plains of the Ukraine, or working as some wage slave for a capitalist in Germany proper. That's not a utopia unless you get off on the idea of the German state controlling lots of land.

Lelnin did it already

1984 was not really about power for the sake of power it was about the manipulative use of language to mess with peoples minds.

I've always wondered why "English Socialism" used a handshake as it's symbol.

I've generally thought of the handshake as more of an American socialist thing.

I guess it is.

The person who made the symbol probably just looked up "socialist party" and came across the 2nd symbol.

"It's okay to ignore human rights as long as it's for MY CAUSE!!!!" is the cancer that is killing the right and the left and the center and everything in between.

Once you resort to being an edgy child, you don't go back.

Go take your religion somewhere else.

Whats wrong with not killing people for saying things you don't like?

Machiavelli was not anti human rights…
He said that you can overlook them if there was something that threat your rule
+ There is a leftist reading of Machiavelli "the Machiavellian revolutionary"

How about you read him…

Because that's not how the world works. You establish a new order by crushing its enemies. Respectful revolutions where everyone just sort of peacefully agrees to overthrow the reigning socio-economic paradigm only exists within the grey matter of liberals.

I'm not against a violent revoultion where we kill everyone who is a threat but once the government has been started try to give people fair trials and human rights.

...

At least you're sequestered here and not the real world.

Look at any revolution in human history and you'll see that women were raped and children murdered. There is no such thing as a "nice" revolution.

Trips confirms

We should only kill people who are a true threat to the revoultion. People with the actual power to stop the revoultion.

You couldn't even put a gun to someone's head and take their life if you wanted to, faggot. All your line of "debate" serves is an excuse to get into internet tough guy competitions on anonymous image boards where there are no repercussions for your statements.

This is meaningless utopianism. We "should" peacefully change the system through parliamentary democracy so that no one gets hurt and we all live the SocDem dream. But as we have seen, that is not something that can actually happen. Similarly, peaceful revolutions where only the bad guys get hurt don't happen. When society breaks down, people will break loose of the laws and standards set for them and engage in horrible excesses. This has always happened. Wishing for this to be the case will not stop that.

I don't understand the purpose of your comment. I agree with your assertion, I'm a coward and would likely die very swiftly if any revolutionary violence broke out near me. But does that somehow make peaceful revolution possible? Will that protect innocents from excesses? I am irrelevant; the course of revolutions has little to do with me or you or any other individual.

This is not a value judgement, merely an assessment of the way revolutions generally proceed.

It doesn't really have anything to do with me or anyone on this board.

Revolutions are violent. That's just the way things are. There's no point in hamstringing them for the sake of some liberal concept of civility.

Can we just do a coup and not a revoultion then?

Also what about the Cuban revoultion that was somewhat non-violent.

The Cuban Revolution was violent.

Not really. They had a group and they gained massive public support killed Batista's army executed his henchmen and then took power. Very little unnecessary killing.

Well, you kill as much as is necessary. You realize that this is different in different circumstances. A prospective revolution in the United States, for instance, almost certainly isn't going to be as universally popular as the Cuban Revolution, necessitating firmer hand.

Not all of it has to be executions, mind, but your opponents need to be neutralized one way or another (and you'll make an opponent of ever person who is worse off because of your revolution)

Whats stopping us from having human rights after the revoultion is over.

...

World revoultion will have to wait trot. Its not going to happen all at once.

Well, for one thing, human rights should be made completely obsolete by communism.

Having "human rights" implies you live in a system in which dehumanization is common and intrinsic to the system that a specific ban on dehumanization is necessary.

I'm talking under socialism.

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. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states. The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic, which will more and more concentrate the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or nations, in the struggle against states that have not yet gone over to socialism. The abolition of classes is impossible without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, of the proletariat. A free union of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less prolonged and stubborn struggle of the socialist republics against the backward states.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm

There is no humanity, only classes. Even after a revolutionary transition of the MoP into workers hands, enemies remain as foreign forces and persist in ideology and bitter reactionary elements trying to subvert achievements made. Human rights is class unifying bogus.

Ok. Let me just say this. In my Utopian socialist society I want to be able to talk without going to gulag. Is that fine?

I like the pol pot bait threads better. With these new threads, I get the impression that the Holla Forums raiders in question barely got through their high school lit readings and still think Orwell condemned all of socialism when he wrote 1984.

PS: Orwell was a socialist and Holla Forums's ignorance remains astonishing.

Bitch please

...

nah face it fam Stalin was a little beta cuck

You wouldn't go to gulag for talking anyway. The idea that you went to gulag for so much as farting in the wrong way was largely Western propaganda.

I'd also like a democracy is that's possible.My idea is to have a direct democracy and a constitution with socialism in it so the country never returns to capitalism but can still have a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Well, I would say that's necessary for socialism.

Great. So what happens if the people vote to establish human rights?

...

Machiavelli did not believe in human rights. (Though, no one except for christfags actually believed it at the time, so he's not exactly unique.)

However, he did believe in democracy and republicanism. Citizens of a polity have the rights necessary for them to express their liberty, which was defined as political participation/non-domination by foreign/hierarchical entities.

:^) Git gud at Cambodian history. Read nigger, read.

Nothing, because they're pointless and redundant. Hopefully, humanism would have been overcome by then, but whatever.

Do they get implemented?

Ingsoc just reflects Orwell's embittered personal quarrel with Stalin

And his love of Trotsky.

...

Gold stein = trotsky

They're already implemented, unless the "right" is something that conflicts with socialism, like the right to property.

Right to property is stupid. Its not even a right.

Nice pic.