UserWiki:M99.exe

German democratic reformist communist, open to diffrent opinions, excluding bare insults. Feel free to add me on discord :) m99%#2420 Decentralized syndicalist economy. Unitary Parliament with delegates from parties voting over direct votes.

[[File:Dem.png]] Fully Representative Democracy
The biggest problem all democracies of the west that are "representative" and atleast try to be representative democracies in opposite to unrepresentative, undemocratic ""democracies"" like the UK or  the US, is that they will never reach true representation in their system.Explaining my system of Fully Representative Democracy will be more easy on an example comparing to "representative" democracies.

There is an election in a representative democracy after the idea of most of these in europe. Party A, Party B and Party C are the candiates, Party B and C would like to rule together as their ideas match the most, but want to run independently. There are only 3 seats (other scenario: there is a threshold of 5 votes, but the result is the same). Vote Share: Party A: 10 Party B: 9 Party C: 2

In this democracy Party A will get 2 seats and party B 1, party C wont recive a seat. The voting power in a motion of a law is same for all parties, this means that the 9 voters of party B do get 1 seats, while 10 voters of Party A get 2, this means a vote for Party A has nearly double the worth in compare to a vote for party B. All voters for party C do not matter, tho party B and party C would have had a majority 11 to 10 in compare to party A.

What happens in a Fully Representative Democracy after my ideas is very uncomplex. Party A gets 2 seats that both have a voting power of 5. Party B gets 1 seat that has the voting power of 9. Party C gets into the minority fraction with one seat with the voting power of 2

The idea is that representatives vote with the votes of voters. This makes a democracy highly more representative. The minority fraction should not be able to motion laws tho, in order to keep out attacks on democratic process by extremist groups. Of course I know that democracy has to be direct, but that is included in my economy. Not everyone should always decide directly about everything, somethings need to be done by people that are trusted by these, as they have the time to go deeper into topics and get better ideas of them.

[[File:Indust.png]] Democratic Economy [[File:Synd.png]]
A good economy that tries to emply the ideals of an equal society can only be organized mainly from down to above. In my idealistic economy every job splits its self into councils/unions out of a given small verifiable number of people, which elect (with the democratic representative system given above) higher councils for budget, problems or even specified problems depending on how big the company is. Also a overall leading council for the company should be elected. All workers will elect councils out of diffrent branches then, if they are very big, ofc at first regional (for example all teachers of a big city) and then more unitary, or if its a very small group just unitary, these will then share the extra budget by the state on companies according to need. This will be regulated by the elected state with a minimum and maximum wage, maximum working hours, etc. and ofc a minimum plan decided by the regioanl and unitary councils of the branch and the government, but they will decide democratically what they need and how they spend their money. This systems goal is no overproduction by conflict between workers, but making sure everyone gets their needs covered.

[[File:Demsocstar.png]]Leftist "Unity"[[File:Ancom.png]] - A Fairy Tale[[File:Sralin.png]]
Leftist Unity, considering it to be the Unity of the whole Left spectrum might be in theory a good idea, in order to make leftism strong and work together to common goals. But what shall these common goals be? And what should a compromise be? Compromise on democracy? Compromise on civil rights? Compromise on freedom? Leftist Unity would only be possible be in a historic offer of Authoritarian and Anarchist Leftists. As a good democratic Leftist does not compromise on democracy, does not compromise on freedom and does not compromise on civil rights. A real Democrat the Leftist Democrat puts Democracy over his own concrete political ideals or what you want to do? Put down all parties the tankies dont like? Build up communes and destabilies the state? Have unrepresentative democratic structures supporting the Leftist Unity Party? This will never, NEVER end in more democracy our ideals cannot be achived with comprimises on Democracy. Democrats stand with democracy, we shall not step back. Freedom is for all freedom-loving people not compramisable, what do you want to do? Put up just some cams in semi-private places? Cams only in the livingroom? No thanks. Civil Rights are not discussable. Reactionary Leftists can not be discussed with. Or what you want to do? Imprison half of the Homosexuals? Taking half of the women rights? Halarious. Civil Rights are not to be comprimsed on.

[[File:Dem.png]]Democratic Leftist Unity[[File:Soc.png]]
Democratic Lefitists of the world unite! All Democratic freedom-loving progressive or social liberal Leftist Forces, including the centre-left as anything else would be unrealistic. From Council Communists, over Democratic Marxists to Syndicalists to Democratic Socialists, till the Social Democrats. We will together find compromises, we will be able to take the first steps to the liberation of the worker. Ofcourse we wont reach Communism with some Social Democrats, but it is the only way for us to take on reform. We need realism, reform and rationality and if you dont agree, close your book and face reality.

The Culture War: Why? (lol)
The Culture War is happening everywhere, only the fewest things exclude themselfs from the Culture War. The Culture War is the struggel of the Old against the New, with the reactionaries and conservatives fighting to put the world back in time and social libverals and proggressives putting it forward. The Cultural Left has declared itsself to fight in the 18th century with its restist to the old order of things in the enlightment. The Cultural Right has since then been trying to stop the protest, in diffrent ways, diffreing in the reactionaries trying to set the civilization back for centuries and the conservatives wanting to set it back for decades or years. The Cultural Left is to be split into the social Liberals wanting a world of somewhat euqality thinking about reforms of the current system to make it more fair in future and the progressives dreaming of the next cultural revolution. Noone who is political can abstain from the Culture War as the Culture War knows no status quo, if you accept the ways things are in your country, you decide for the current plans of the state wether its progressing or regressing. The Culture has started and therefore can only be ended by the victory by one side, a compromise can only be a victory for the culturally left forces as they will get their progress of some kind from the former status quo.

[[File:Prgess.png]] The Cultural Left - progressing the status quo
The Cultural Left decided to challenge the status quo with questioning the justification of states and monarchy. It decided to reject the old order. The Cultural Left continued in movments like the feminist movment,  LGBTQIA+ rights movments and movments for more  sexual freedoms. The Cultural Left has been progressing due reform by making progressives suggesting the ideas of the reformists in 50 years. This means that known ideas are threatining the conservatives, that at some point are more likely to go along as they heared often enough of it, example: In germany, at first, legalisation of homosexuality was seen as a communist idea in the 20s till the 70s, when  social democrats,  liberals and  greenists decided to go along and legalise  homosexuality,  the conservatives at first countered this idea, but now a days there is not a single conservative even thinking about the illegalisation of homosexuality (more to this later down).

[[File:Trad.png]] The Cultural Right - regressing the status quo
The Cultural Right, since the attacks on its order, has been trying to stop the progress of the Cultural Left and regress it after. While Conservatives want to go back for years or decades being very flexible threw the centuries, the reactionaries demand regressions of centruies, which makes them quite constant threw the years, but a minority. In the first centuries the Cultural Right failed to respond in a constant way with their kingdoms and empires not noticing the Cultural War going with the revolutions and movments of their populations. In the 20th century the Cultural Right started to respond, waking up in a world progressing in a way and system harsh against their old ideas of how politics work: It used normalisation directly inside society. The first responses where aggressive and unplanned with the shouting conservatives and reactionaries in democracies not respecting the Cultural Left as a strong enemy and the highly reactionary dictatorships purging the Cultural Left, giving it a special protection in the after world of their collapse. The Cultural Right only has been able to start going in a real fight in this century, the New Right has been trying to boycott the progress by going into the societies mind and the all days talk. They have been succsessfull for now establishing anti-trans thought and words like "Social Justice Warrior" in most of the society, even partly the Cultrual Left. The war has been started. ( Ah, finally a worthy opponent our battle will be legendary!)

[[File:M99.png]] My Theory - Who will win the Cultural War?
As the only end will be victory of one side as said in "The Culture War: Why?", the only question that stays is who will win the cultural war. My stance is clear: The Cultural Left. The Cultural Left has a gigantic advatange towards the regressive forces, why?, very easy. The Cultural Left and the Cultural right share about the same amount of population in western countries (the countries that due their imperialistic influence influence the world politics), the advantage of the Cultural Left is that its a purly progressive force. The social liberals and the progressives stand together for progress, while they might disagree the progressives will never say no to the reforms of the social liberals as they only goal for progress and plan on progressing further in later years, other than with the reactionaries towards the conservatives. The reactionaries find the illegalisation of sexual freedom and homosexuality essential, while the conservatives demand on keeping these rights, as the time does not run backwards giving the reactionaries later on the chance for more regression they have no chance for reform. Another problem for the Cultural Right is the progression of the conservatives, they, even if they dont admit, progress with time. They they started finding women rights absolutly normal, they started finding homosexuality absolutly normal and they will start, in 50 years maximum find transsexuality normal. The only chances for the Cultural Right are murderous and therefore wont be considered by most of them. Their start of fight in this century was noticed by the Left and is fought, they will not be able to regress the ideas established, they will not be able to stop or regress time and therefore they wil not be able to stop the Cultrual Left.

Comments and Countertheory
Now it would be very cool if you help me, tell me if you think I missed something out, did a mistake and if u totaly reject my ideas you are free to here post your countertheory or comment (u can also write me on dc for mistakes/outmissings etc. m99%#2420) ^^ (be atleast a lil serious and nice): M99 Own critical countertheory: The limits of progress. The Cultural Left of the 1950s or 1920s would have already reached all its goal. The idea of a limit to progressing a society seems unreasonable, but when all indivdiuals are culturally socially (not economically) equal in their rights, the Cultural Left cannot progress without being neo-reactionary, with the modern world as a collective being very aware of nearly all minorities and majorities is able to reach this somewhat. If culturally socially euqality has been theoriest already the end of the cultural war could be already reached or is atleast visuable. All attempts of more progress could only be neo-reactionary which, looking at campaigns again supporting segregation or murder of groups of sexuality or coulor of skin in the opposite direction of the most reactionary demands of such a behaviour, seems to be some what founded. This critical idea of myself towards my ideas about the Culture War is nothing I believe in as history shows how much the phisical and socio-economical changes change the way of ineuqalities to fight for the Cultural Left and has seemingly never stopped, but I believe its a justified Countertheory and I hope other people also have some :)

List of nations in need of a communist [[File:Ormarxf.png]] (ofc democratic) revolution (Revolution go brrrr, but plz follow human rights)
Afghanistan Algeria Belarus China North Korea Pakistan Saudi Arabia Russia baisically all Dictatorships

==List of nations in need of a communist (ofc democratic) revolt/protests threatening to overthrow the state (Reform is unlikely, should be considered tho, revolution might be considered)==

USA UK Turkey Israel India Cuba All these corrupted shit democracies, that are 0% representative

List of nations in need of communist [[File:Ormarxf.png]] (ofc democratic) strikes/protests (Reform should be definetly be the only choice, revolution shouldnt be considered in the current state)
All western democracies not named above or below, like Germany and so on. So all somewhat representative democracies that follow human rights.

List of nations in need of communist [[File:Ormarxf.png]] protests (Totaly just Reform)
Denmark Sweden

List of nations that are f*cking based
Rojava (is comrade ^^)

Parliamentary Elections
1871 - - LGGWA 1874 - -  SAPD 1877 - -  SAPD 1878 - -  SAPD 1881 - -  SAPD 1884 - -  SAPD 1887 - -  SAPD 1890 - -  SPD 1893 - -  SPD 1898 - -  SPD 1901 - -  SPD 1907 - -  SPD 1912 - -  SPD 1919 - - KPD 1920 - - KPD 1924 (May) - - KPD 1924 (December) - - KPD 1928 - -  SPD 1930 - -  SPD 1932 (July) - -  SPD 1932 (November) - -  SPD 1933 (March) - -  SPD 1947 - -  SPD 1953 - -  SPD 1957 - -  SPD 1961 - -  SPD 1965 - -  SPD 1969 - -  SPD 1972 - -  SPD 1976 - -  SPD 1980 - -  SPD 1983 - -  SPD 1987 - -  SPD 1990 - - PDS 1994 - - PDS 1998 - - PDS 2002 - - PDS 2005 - - PDS 2007 - - Die LINKE 2009 - - Die LINKE 2013 - - Die LINKE 2017 - - Die LINKE 2021 - - Die LINKE

Presidential Elections (Only counting ones everyone could vote in)
1925 - - Wilhelm Marx 1932 - - Ernst Thälmann

Noice
BeryAb Very nice in introducing me. Politically mehhh, I think he would be a leftist if he got more into his politics xD

Chirotesla Socially fine, not going as far as communism is somethin for when I am old and have given up ma life, going a bit too far with ur modernisation but modernisation kinda based. The rest sounds like u could be a cool coalition partner for a democratic lefist unity coalition so u cool bro :)

Normal
Matteel Seems to have some good policies but is a capitalist and I actually dont really know him, he wanted me to add him tho xD

am Egoist so baisically wanting that everyone does what they want no matter what. litrally against morality lol, luckly still commie and clearly opposed to capitalism, maybe when he gets older...

Councilguy Leftist, being an  anarchist is fine, but being  anti "post"-civilisation and  anti-work is kinda cringe ngl. cool that u did some crimes but what u did is litrally kindergarten lol

Tony567 Ehm wanting the state to baisically be a cooperation (atleast democratic)...if u werent proggressive u would have landed in No.

Bman Cant tell if u are democrat, seem kinda like one. Prob to authoritarian for me but overall pretty fine, sadly also conservative.

No
Typicalfan4 classical conservative national capitalist, that is probably playing nazi germany too often in hoi4 ;) (finding insults and  Anti-LGBTQIA+ funny wtf?)

Leninisbased Leninist, anti-democratic, for centralized economy -> bad ideas

LordCompost Atleast u have gotten an opinion now but dude...Like no economics, no state, no morals. Litrally policital philiosphy that luckly will always stay in the books.

No No No
KaiserKlausMouse Ah an American that wants to annex poland for germany, is reactionary, seems to be a fash fash and wants same rights for animals as humans excluding poles apperantly lol. No thanks, btw check on the 3rd Way/Dritter Weg, it might be a party fitting u more in germany than the   AfD :P

Ukraiana Litrally supporting actions by the nazis, supporting eugenics, massacare on the left and proggressives, "ethnic-nationalism", commiting to be a fascist, do I have to continue? That guy is insane ._.

AmericanFascist Yeah a fascist. Litrally uses a slogan of the SS in his profile and supports the wage gap. Ehm...no.

Tolkien IRL Totalitarian Capitaist that is reactionary. Fucking meme.

Comments
Leninisbasedpretty based but why hate tankies? Also who drew your ball

M99 u seem to be a pretty unbased tankie (one party state), Bery made ma ball, he introduced me is also german and quite nice (tho he isnt politically too smart). I am opposed to one party socialist states as their economics are often horribly centralized, their political freedoms are not much better than the ones in capitalist one party states and the message transported by supporting such a state is making yourself responsible for 60 Million deaths (better than fascism but still bruh moment). The ideas of your interpretations of a dictatorship by the proletariat are way overcome. The rule of the masses is not reached by a single party or even worse, single person, state. When we talk about the dictatorship or rule of the proletariat u tankies need to be honest and admit, the only possbile way of a rule of the millions with all their opinions being heared is only reachable threw a multi-party, multi-opinion state: A democracy.}} Leninisbased you know could have a multi party system they would just all have to be leftist parties are rightist parties would be banned M99 Rightists should also be allowed to say their opinion and express it in politics, otherwise u opprese the opinion of atleast ATLEAST 20%-10% of the population that is rightist by nature
 * Mind adding me please? I'll add you back
 * Add on dc or here on this webside, bc idk how to add here?

Leninisbased ok but we could maybe create a conservative leftist party? M99 The conservative leftist parties are still left wing, right wingers should be allowed to form parties espacilly democratic ones for example Bery is a rightist democrat ofc he should be allowed to found an own party, anyone should. He is way more democratic than u and therefore he is on the bases of Polity way more closer to me.

Leninisbased ok but hear me out you might be cool with this, can we ban AfD?

M99 The AfD are free to express their opinion and remember if u dont ban a party, u see all the right wing extremists step into light, where u can controll them and check on them not doing terrorist acts like it sadly happend in the last years in germany.

M99 Yes ofc :) Typicalfan4-Add me M99 Yes ofc ^^
 * add me plz

RedDragon

M99 You are thinking wrong. Many factories, schools, hospitals, libraries can be built from the budgets of many political parties. Where there are many political parties, they receive a large amount of money from the state treasury. They are emptying the state treasury. They do nothing but make people think of each other. Democracy does not mean many political parties. One-party socialist states can have direct democracy. People with interesting inventions with a production idea can submit projects directly to the assembly. Projects that are found suitable can be passed directly in the State as well. Centralization is not such a terrible thing, on the contrary, it helps. Since you have gathered all the management in one hand, very rapid development will be achieved. The problem of calculating today's technologies together has also been solved. With today's technologies It is now easy to know which products and how much the people consume from the centers. You can control the central authority by forming a civil society.

You don't need to let the rightists speak their minds either. The political ideas of the rightists are clear. Right-wing contains the ideas of reaction and conservatism. Most of the ignorant are reactionary and conservative right-wingers. From the subjects you are interested in and know, your will, your future, or everyone who is like you; When you let the generally ignorant, reactionary and right-wing people determine your future, they will darken your future and plunge the country into darkness.

M99 Hello, 1. Centralized economies are threatening democracy as the power lays in the hand of a monopol, which is only merely better than a capitalist one as the few people are atleast elected. Such a system would (and has) include a lot of corruption, preference towards some people - exclusion of others, leading to inequality. 2. Democracy does not only live from active but also representative votings, supporting just one of them in your system is bad for the democracy and a bad sign for democratic representation of people. I support active democracy in a decentralized economy, planned therefore by the people, but the people need to be able to chnage the whole system around them as being able to change the processes in the system via active democracy: This needs a multi party parliament on national scale + multi-party parliaments in smaller regions. If a system works somewhat good, it should have nothing to fear. 3.Rightists are not inhuman monsters, they also want to tell their theories and political ideas, which in history lead to good, but mainly very bad things. The left lead to many good things in the west, only leaving few bad changes, in the east tho I would say it was more balanced out, with the right being a bit worse in Imperial Japan and Imperialism. We cannot deny the achivments of rightists in plural democracies.


 * Please don't turn into Matteel 2.0, he caused me enough headaches when he screeched every rightist stereotype ever imagined at me in his wiki page and commented the same thing over and over again in my page. Your ideology isn't even that bad. Also, why do you think I'm a fascist?

M99 I aint a social democrat so I wont be fitting much to Matteel. Supporting the annexiation of former "german-lands" is halarious, combined with ur national-fetishism, reactionary ideas, anti-capialism and anti-communism, makes u seem to be much fitting with the designation of fascism. I dont feel in any way connected to you but ur anti-capitalism, u can like my ideology ofc, urs is extreme cringe tho. (why tf do animals get same rights as humans, but poles are taken away their homes, wtf dude???)


 * Well I wouldn't count that to be entirely accurate. 1. I mean in the way he approaches me, with complete hostility despite my efforts for peace, but you don't seem too much like him. 2. How is it hilarious? Those lands have been German for centuries. 3. I don't understand what you mean by "national-fetishism." 4. Yes I am reactionary, but there are a lot of reactionary ideologies which are not fascist. 5. Saying I'm anti-communism is a bit of a stretch, I'm anti-ancoms. Marxist Leninists and libcoms are alright, even if I think communism is a bit unrealistic. Also yes, Capitalism is certainly cringe. So I'm not sure if you could really call it "fascism." 6. Don't forget that they were artificially pushed into those territories by the Soviet Union, they did not live there for more than 4 generations, Poland too, suffered from WWII, and lost their eastern territories to the Soviet Union, so they got screwed over too. Tbh WWI and WWII really screwed up Europe as a whole. But the point is that taking back the old territories is just reversing the damage. Also if we would take back old territories, I would hope that we don't stoop as low as the Russians and Czechs. 7. Yes, animals deserve rights, it's frustrating that progressives only care about rationalizing their 103 genders and forcing businesses to have at least 60% Black employees instead of focusing on the mass genocide and rape against animals every day, right under our noses.


 * Oh boi if you think Kaiser was that bad wait until you see some more buddy [[File:Troll.png]]

M99 I already saw ur profile and I was shocked about ur existence ._.

M99 Yep yap c: Leninisbased we talked earlier wanna add me? M99 Ye ye :1
 * Hello there, please add me I'll add you back. Also you should look into egoism, it's great.

Leninisbasedbro you put me for a sec then removed me:( M99 no lol?

Leninisbased it whent for a sec on my screen the other day [[File:Tony567.png[[Tony567]] hi can you add me Please [[File:M99.png]] M99 Yas :D [[File:RedDragon.png]] RedDragon are you against rojava? M99

M99 no, I support Rojava even if they are not my ideology, bc they are real comrades :)

UserWiki:LordCompost86|LordCompost As the most prominent Stirnerite (the one that actually knows what the hell it is talking about) it would be fitting to be added by the seemingly most prominent Marxist. Although your response may be the same as Am m's which is quite funny really - seeing as Marx also opposed morality although in a much different way - Just replacing it with systems such as his materialism and his dialectics. Which Stirner to an extent also replaces morality owness which is his highest good. So much to a muchness there. }}

M99 Ehm, Karl Marx is a comrade and a great when not even the greatest political philosopher. But he is not my god, I believe in morals, not like the christian-conservatives, but my own ones. I have a moral compass for myself. UserWiki:LordCompost86|LordCompost Well I think he has a lot of offer but I wouldn't say Stirner is my god. Bob Dylan is closer to being my god lol... which you know is probably why I'm a very progressive person.

But Stirner and by extention every "egoist" including myself doesn't so much have a moral system but more so a personal value scale which usually starts as the basis for nearly every moral system. But see I would oppose fascism, Nazism, Capitalism, state socialism, genocide, yada yada not because I want to do right by anyone or the right thing, but because I don't like them - they oppose what I am and what I will do. But I don't care if Joe over there is under those systems - if Mary was, and she meant something to me and her loss made my life worse off then I would care - But again only from a very subjective and selfish care.

So perhaps there is a moral code to have - But Stirner doesn't reject morality - he rejects a universal and absolute morality - even if one unique person put their moral on another even in agreement - if they forced that person to hold on to them even if they wanted to break the agreement that is what Stirner analysed. Probably a purposeful mis-interpretation on a lot of people's parts.

Also brudda you didn't add - Sad hours. }} M99 I think that moral values can differ between people, but overall there is a moral consens in a massive majority of the population about certian topics, something like main values. I dont know how to give it in words but for example nearly everyone finds the life of 10000 humans should be safed instead of one life rather than the other way around, no matter what. UserWiki:LordCompost86 Wasn't always the case - Certain people's lives where considered greater than others - Even now the president, prime minister, or the king then (and minimally now) were and are more important than the average person that gets thrown away - especially in Wars, or pandemics, or in countries which aren't deemed as important that are used for slavery to help certain rich individuals.

I do not deny that moral language has an importance - but values have changed through history and haven't been telling a story of progress. The Pre-socratic Sophists taught that values, truths and morals were in flux and conditioned by situations - While the history of Western philosophy from atleast Plato has been aiming at this absolute truth. There have been standouts similar to the Sophist position throughout History - The Pyrrhonists (skeptics), Sade, Stirner, Russian Nihilists (to an extent), Nietzsche, and more recently the Post-Structuralists.

I also do not deny that morality in atleast in the West has been heavily conditioned by a combination of Christianity, and Hellenistic Rationalism that has aimed at Moral absolutes and a general underlying system of Power directed at creating moral responsibilities - No life is perhaps worth more than any other or worth anything at all - And yes Morals have both an abstract idealised concept destined for thought experiments and the everyday morality of not stealing because you may get punished - but that is less a factor of morality and more in line with Power - something Stirner, Nietzsche and the post-structuralists agree on.

However to your point of morality - I find that suggesting a human nature and a particular direction that people take is iffy - if a human does it - is it not human nature? Yes most humans display empathy - I even help those I will never meet again because it makes ME happy - But regarding several lives more than one is different for each person - There is the person that will go to war or sacrifice themself for their country or even a single person - But this person in the opinion of myself and Stirner is someone who has been also tricked or moreso convinced by themself that this is the best thing for them - even if I couldn't live without this person or something akin to that. I find that creating absolutes in morality really doesn't work - especially seeing as Moral discourse has been around for atleast 3000 years ago in only written record and we haven't found an answer.

M99 First states and morals that put people over others are simply and just and have no real reason to do so. Prime Ministers are voted by the people under the peope, so they are the same, in systems likes USA, look above what I wrote, unjust and undemocratic, thats just it.

I am not that much into wishy washy moralities, I like ones that equalize people. I know many people see morals diffrent, but I think if you want all humans to be equal you should use a system close to mine. To me every human has a value of 1 which makes morality calculatable. Thats extremly easy 2>1 a murder that plans on killing three people or has killed has a value of -2 ofc then, which means he is 1>-2. But my mathimatically moral system is not fully developed at all I have been thinking of it since 3 weeks. Rn I think it should be only used if its in a situation of life and death between humans.

And I think its clear for most people what morality is somewhat, but ofc its not clear. I btw dont fully believe in theorists sitting in their wacky armchairs theorising around, politics should stick to clear policies (ofc that can be sticked to philosophies) rather than just being a philosophical state (meaning where everyone just theorises around, a society needs to work).}}

AmericanFascist great another Garbage socialist who is turning into another Matteel. The only good Cultural Leftists and or Socialists are dead ones.}}

M99 Okay fascist.

yet another person that thinks post-civ=primitivism. sad

M99 hehe...go to cave Tolkien IRL - Add me? M99 - Ye, plz add back ^^ Bman - Add me M99 - mhm, addin back would be cool :) M99 - Ofc, cna u then also add me plz? c:
 * add me, please. thought on my self insert ideology?

- I uh, finalised my beliefs or "got an opinion" in your words. Mind changing your thing on me? Thanks. I'll re-add you aswell.

M99 - Yeah ehem wont change too much tho lol

- Yea probs not, because the marxist can't see politics other than a grand overarching meta-narrative that fixes everything instead of a political attitude of life that I will actually experience. Ohwell.

M99 - The diffrence between us is that u will end up in prison and I will end up doing local politics prob even changing stuff :P

- Funnily enough I currently have a job in local politics and I am studying economics, politics, and philosophy at Uni which contains placements in higher government workplaces. So that's a laugh on your part.

AmericanFascist Can you not read? I never gave the idea of the wage gap before. I'm simply saying that it's very much use by people with over excessive intentions which make the whole point more about complaining than real money. Money wise it's very low and or not really seen so but I never stated that I supported it. I simply stated that it didn't exist and was just made by people who want more money than deserved.

M99 - If u say its based on how much people work and that therefore its not really existent, then you support the existence of it, by saying its not an existing problem.

- Add me?

- I changed by ideology