Power

If you held a high branch of power (Such as a new-found leader), what would you do with it?

(This is in comparision to the "socialism" thread created by Kenzu in the Revolutionary hall, but here, anyones ideals can be posted, from fascism too anarchism.)

---
I personally have too admit, the power would go to my head. The thought of having a entire civialization under my wimb would be too much, i would almost inevitably take it under total control and appoint myself as emperor.

I'd do everything that said possition allowed me to do to assist the start of a revolution.

establis a Massive millatary crush the world and make a constitution and ppl that don't follow it get killed.

mattabesta wrote:

establis a Massive millatary crush the world and make a constitution and ppl that don't follow it get killed.

That's pretty much my thoughts...besides the whole "They get killed part," not too mention you would have practically everything you dreamt of.

And you call yourselves "democrats".

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

And you call yourselves "democrats".

Heh, hypocritically, i know, but power does things that usually aren't presented. I would like to see someone tell me with a straight face they would rather throw away everything for a revolution than to have all of their desires accomplished..it's something i don't think i could do.

Some people on this site have violence issues.

Rename wrote:

Heh, hypocritically, i know, but power does things that usually aren't presented. I would like to see someone tell me with a straight face they would rather throw away everything for a revolution than to have all of their desires accomplished..it's something i don't think i could do.

Imagine that said person's desire is precisely to have the kind of world a socialist revolution could give? Revolution, for revolutionaires is not a sacrifice but a main goal.

I can't think of something I really desire that I could be able to get by being something like "the leader of mankind" or the "leader of a strong nation".

Abolish it.
Pop goes the hierarchy.

Quote :

I personally have too admit, the power would go to my head. The thought of having a entire civialization under my wimb would be too much, i would almost inevitably take it under total control and appoint myself as emperor.

How can you admit this and still support systems of coercive authority and heirarchy?

Quote :

establis a Massive millatary crush the world and make a constitution and ppl that don't follow it get killed.

Quote :

That's pretty much my thoughts...besides the whole "They get killed part," not too mention you would have practically everything you dreamt of.

.....I'm shocked, really. You're admitting that you would perpetuate the same American policies that have made the earth such a dysmal place for the last century+. Do people not remember Viet-nam? Or Nicaragua, Guatemala, Iran, Indonesia, Iraq (etc., etc., etc., etc....)? All those terrible situations were created by the neo-liberal notion that those in power (specifically those in power in America) have a right to change societies (that are not their own) through military intervention (either direct, or through contra's and state terrorism) if need be (or fixing, subverting elections) on the basis that the benevolent leader knows best what the people of the respective country want (Ya, we said this during Nam, even though the NLF, the only mass-based party in Nam, was acting counter to the Americans). This is, of course, pure straw.

And hell, you guys aren't even saying that you would act with such military strength in a way that benefited the people. You're literally admitting, as even our own leaders will not, that you would be aggressive to preserve your own grand interests.

I really hope there's an explanation for these sentiments, otherwise, i'm quite sickened by this thread.

Black_Cross wrote:

How can you admit this and still support systems of coercive authority and heirarchy?

Because nothing is stopping me. Not too forget a president and a emperor are completely different things. I stated that if you were in charge of a civilization (Not a democratic system, just a authorian one) what would you do with it. Why would i turn it into a democracy? What if a democratic republic wasn't even around during this time period? Wouldn't you strive for conquest rather than just govern your own state? I really don't think your imagining this to the extent i first posted this for. Maybe your official goal would be...hmm, lets say communism. Military would be used to capture the world (Yes, i said capture) than you would eventually just dissolve into a system without government (Something that i, or many others probably would not beable to do with such power.)

Have you ever been in a situation were you have so much power, its hard to control? Maybe a president leader at school, for example?

But keep in mind...this is directed toward the time of emperors, and monarchy, and shit of the such, when a lot of todays issues would not be around, it would be more distant. AND don't forget that not everyone has the ideal that "dissolving the government after being in power" is a good idea.

And finally...i never even mentioned the peoples interest/benefits, i said that their would be rules, as in a constitution, but i didn't refrain to matta, which said he would kill for not following these rules, so for that, you ask him, not me. I didn't type very much about my statement so i didn't go very deep.

Rename wrote:

Because nothing is stopping me.

That's twisted.

Quote :

Not too forget a president and a emperor are completely different things.

I fail to see any pertinence.

Quote :

I stated that if you were in charge of a civilization (Not a democratic system, just a authorian one) what would you do with it.

I understand this quite well. My stance remains the same.

Quote :

Why would i turn it into a democracy? What if a democratic republic wasn't even around during this time period?

Why should i be worried about such intricacies? It was your hypothetical, not mine. If we weren't aware of democracy and such (in this hypothetical), then you should've mentioned that. But going back and saying "what if" doesn't change the fact that you admitted that you'd be a warmonger.

Quote :

Wouldn't you strive for conquest rather than just govern your own state? I really don't think your imagining this to the extent i first posted this for. Maybe your official goal would be...hmm, lets say communism. Military would be used to capture the world (Yes, i said capture) than you would eventually just dissolve into a system without government (Something that i, or many others probably would not beable to do with such power.)

And the reason i'm an anarchist, the reason i reject all coercive authority such as this, is because i don't imagine i could do this either. I would imagine a fascist state like this would have no possibility of coming to an egalitarian, democratic end. It's as if you were trying to have sex to obtain virginity, it's just backwards, and nonsensical.

Quote :

Have you ever been in a situation were you have so much power, its hard to control? Maybe a president leader at school, for example?

You're damn right it's hard to handle. And i see no one person fit to handle it.

Quote :

But keep in mind...this is directed toward the time of emperors, and monarchy, and shit of the such, when a lot of todays issues would not be around, it would be more distant.

Probably something to be stated in the OP. And if it's directed towards that time period, and we're assuming ignorance of the way of the world today, then you were wrong when you said that "...here, anyones ideals can be posted, from fascism too anarchism" because anarchy doesn't exist.

Quote :

AND don't forget that not everyone has the ideal that "dissolving the government after being in power" is a good idea.

But you've already admitted to what happens when someone is in this situation, he becomes a tyrant (warmonger, fascist, whatever). So why is it that this extreme violence (state terrorism is what you suggest would be the means to your goal of self-gratification) caused by institutions of coercive authority is okay?

Quote :

And finally...i never even mentioned the peoples interest/benefits,

I mentioned this in my response. And i asserted that this makes it that much more egregious. You wouldn't even claim to conquer a peoples in their own best interest (hypocritical at best), you'd just conquer them so you could line your pockets with gold, or have a lot of power, or women, or whatever it is that you desire.

Quote :

i said that their would be rules, as in a constitution, but i didn't refrain to matta, which said he would kill for not following these rules, so for that, you ask him, not me. I didn't type very much about my statement so i didn't go very deep.

So you'd conquer people without killing them? You must have very interesting insight into warfare, cos last i heard, you still had to out-muscle a country you wanted to conquer.

Rename wrote:

I stated that if you were in charge of a civilization (Not a democratic system, just a authorian one) what would you do with it. Why would i turn it into a democracy? What if a democratic republic wasn't even around during this time period?

I don't know why you wouln't turn it into a democracy, but I would. As for a "democratoc republic"... why would such a thing be needed to stablish democracy in the first place?

Rename wrote:

Wouldn't you strive for conquest rather than just govern your own state? I really don't think your imagining this to the extent i first posted this for. Maybe your official goal would be...hmm, lets say communism.

What I would do with me to establish a mass educational program that allowed people to have the social and economic awareness required for a socialist society to be etablished.

Rename wrote:

Military would be used to capture the world (Yes, i said capture) than you would eventually just dissolve into a system without government (Something that i, or many others probably would not beable to do with such power.)

Or simply do what I stated above and let the rest of the peoples follow.

Rename wrote:

Have you ever been in a situation were you have so much power, its hard to control? Maybe a president leader at school, for example?

I have and I always struggled in the interest of the rest of the students putting my interest behind the interest of the majourity limiting myself to just excert my opinions and arguements.

Rename wrote:

But keep in mind...this is directed toward the time of emperors, and monarchy, and shit of the such, when a lot of todays issues would not be around, it would be more distant.

In that case, being aware as I am of the way economy should work I'd do my best to promote such ideas throughout the community. I'd fight for the worldwide abolishment of slavery and serfdom and for a classless democractic society.

I'm imagining myself in the possition of an allmighty king or something of the sort. Since everyone listened to the king back then, bye-bye monarchy.

Some Russian comrades would come here and say something like "Social Monarchy rules!"

Rename wrote:

AND don't forget that not everyone has the ideal that "dissolving the government after being in power" is a good idea.

Which means that...?

Well, while most emperors/dictators hold all power, presidents have 1/3 branch, but forget this, it holds no real point to our topic

War mongering, yes, as in Roman Empire war mongering. After the job was done they would be respected...besides the jews and christians of course, but thats just an example. It's not like i said i would go out and cause mass fascism on a unbeilevable scale tolling the deaths passed Hitler, which is somewhat of the extent i am gaining from reading both of your posts. But...in repliance to your original thread, i sure would be war mongering.

It can be handled, but in the right hands, which would not be mine. Emperor/Dictators, on the other hand...not so much. Thats too much power.

No, i ment that as in my post, and probably matta's too, was directed toward that, something that probably should have been stated but wasn't. I guess that is my fault, aye?

My stance still holds, i never spotted either side of the fence for the peoples views, i simply said that i would conquer states and indictate a set of laws under it. I never knew i had to post about each sectional proposition in the topic, so i didn't.

Hmm...no, matta said he would kill people who didn't follow his constitution, i said i would not kill people who didn't follow my laws, just average punishment. This isn't in response to the stance on war, as i stated, it was in response to matta's topic of killing for not obeying.

Rename wrote:

War mongering, yes, as in Roman Empire war mongering. After the job was done they would be respected...

I can't be the only one who is revolted by this... Is this how desensitized are becoming nowadays? You do understand that you are saying, quite vividly, that you would march your army into a land that is occupied by peaceful people, destroy them militarily, if need be (which if history is any indicator, it is usually necessary) then you'd respect them... What the fuck....

Quote :

besides the jews and christians of course, but thats just an example. It's not like i said i would go out and cause mass fascism on a unbeilevable scale tolling the deaths passed Hitler, which is somewhat of the extent i am gaining from reading both of your posts. But...in repliance to your original thread, i sure would be war mongering.

So, if i read this correctly, your justification for being... evil, let's call it-- is that, "there's been worse"? Again, a very disturbing development.

Quote :

It can be handled, but in the right hands, which would not be mine.

Yes.. you've demonstrated that quite well.

Quote :

Emperor/Dictators, on the other hand...not so much. Thats too much power.

Tell me you're not complimenting emperors and dictators

Quote :

No, i ment that as in my post, and probably matta's too, was directed toward that, something that probably should have been stated but wasn't. I guess that is my fault, aye?

It's hard to tell who you're talking to, and what you're talking about when you don't quote what you're responding to.

Quote :

My stance still holds, i never spotted either side of the fence for the peoples views, i simply said that i would conquer states and indictate a set of laws under it. I never knew i had to post about each sectional proposition in the topic, so i didn't.

... You said this:

Rename wrote:

But keep in mind...this is directed toward the time of emperors, and monarchy, and shit of the such, when a lot of todays issues would not be around, it would be more distant.

... in order to justify your neo-liberal bullshit. That came straight out of left-field, you understand? So when i told you that shoulda been in the OP, i'm just saying that if you're going to justify your violent tendencies by claiming ignorance, then that needs to be understandable to the people reading your post, or else criticism like i brought against you is to be expected (especially in a forum with a large population of revleftists).

Quote :

Hmm...no, matta said he would kill people who didn't follow his constitution, i said i would not kill people who didn't follow my laws, just average punishment. This isn't in response to the stance on war, as i stated, it was in response to matta's topic of killing for not obeying.

Ya, but you still have to militarily dominate the country in order to put them under your laws. So my point about you being violent, is still very uncontested. And this is not to mention the fact that you're assuming the right to dominate the country (for it's own good, of course), however respectfully, and impose your laws. Please tell me you can justify this.

Heh, Point taken. Respected as in their original state could stay the same besides a new law doctrine (Which would be practically similiar to average laws anyway.) But, i would like to see a dictator who does not strive for conquest.

I ment that as in i would conquer civilizations but i wouldn't go on mass murderering sprees because of race/religion/so forth.

Thanks.

Im 'dissing' them, not complimenting them... how come for some reason each time i type something you see a entire different side of it? I must be either too high today or something else ain't right.

I don't like making the whole quote thing after each compliation, sorry.

Alright...?

You hit that on the nose, i am violent, who ever said i wasn't? If i ever did...please point it out, and i will apologize, if i did say such a thing than i should be accused of it. And you may or may not have noticed my oppurtunist ideals yet, for the age of emperors, have you?

By the way: if were going to continue this longer, youll have to wait, im going inactive onthis site for some time.

Rename wrote:

Heh, Point taken. Respected as in their original state could stay the same besides a new law doctrine (Which would be practically similiar to average laws anyway.) But, i would like to see a dictator who does not strive for conquest.

That'll be the day...

Quote :

I ment that as in i would conquer civilizations but i wouldn't go on mass murderering sprees because of race/religion/so forth.

... Okay... I'm not saying, nor did i ever say that you would do this, but you still hold to the idea of conquering a country... (please don't change the subject again), and it takes murder to conquer a country, and you referenced Hitler as someone worse, so what conclusion could i possibly come to besides that you are just trying to mitigate your violent urges and the acts of violence that you would commit if you were a ruler, by contrasting yourself to Hitler?

Quote :

Im 'dissing' them, not complimenting them... how come for some reason each time i type something you see a entire different side of it? I must be either too high today or something else ain't right.

Apparently i misinterpreted you. I don't, however, remember doing this on any other occasion. If you're talking about matta's comment about killing those who disobey the law, i've already stated that i understand you wouldn't do that, and i understand you wouldn't commit genocide or anything, so you're just imagining a problem here (i get the feeling you're not reading my entire post before responding).

Quote :

I don't like making the whole quote thing after each compliation, sorry.

Then i have a feeling we'll be having more of these complications.

Quote :

Alright...?

Take your time... I understand how hard it can be to process words. And i wouldn't have had to make those references if you had just read my post thoroughly and/or used the 'quote' button.

Quote :

You hit that on the nose, i am violent, who ever said i wasn't? If i ever did...please point it out, and i will apologize, if i did say such a thing than i should be accused of it.

Whether you're a hypocrite or not (judging by what party you're affiliated with, it seems so) was never in question. That would be changing the subject. What i question is the validity of this violence. What gives you the right to impose your will on anyone, with brutal, deadly force? That's the goddamn question!

Quote :

And you may or may not have noticed my oppurtunist ideals yet, have you?

It's glaringly obvious, even from just this thread. In fact, i think you've shown quite well the kind of person you are.

Very minor point:

I'm not surprised that people here would use their new found powers in huge ways. What I am surprised by is what they're using the power for. Instead of using it to say, oh, I don't know, try and make schools more affordable for kids, or try to fix our health care system, or literally anything else, I'm very surprised to see that people are actually saying, not verbatim, "I would use my power to go to war with random people for literally no reason, just because I can".

What the fuck, dudes.

Rename wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

establis a Massive millatary crush the world and make a constitution and ppl that don't follow it get killed.

That's pretty much my thoughts...besides the whole "They get killed part," not too mention you would have practically everything you dreamt of.

nah I'd just stick with the fear me and respect librety and capitalism, no giant house for me.

WeiWuWei wrote:

"I would use my power to go to war with random people for literally no reason, just because I can".

What the fuck, dudes.

I was just reading about Able Archer 83, a nuclear-war excersise conducted by NATO that got the Soviet leadership concerned bou at inminent first strike by NATO considering to preempt it.

US leadership was so surprised that Russians thought there would be a 1st strike from part of the NATO and lots of sources claim that this was due to "Soviet people's poor understanding of the West"...

After reading these guys and considering all of them are westerners that favour USA I wonder... is that a real poor understanding? Were such concerns so unrealistic? Unjustified?

Kenzu wrote:

I would make changes that would lead to a 0% unemployment, free health care, free education and affordable housing for everyone...
...as the first step.

The next step would be to raise productivity, efficiency and the living standard of all citizens.

by privatizing, right?

Black_Cross wrote:

Okay... I'm not saying, nor did i ever say that you would do this, but you still hold to the idea of conquering a country, and it takes murder to conquer a country

For the glory of the emperor!
And forget the Hitler part...i cant seem to describe it too you well enough, contrast on his scale of genocidal acts vs mine would be literally none.

Black_Cross wrote:

(i get the feeling you're not reading my entire post before responding).

Yes I do, twice, usually.

Black_Cross wrote:

What gives you the right to impose your will on anyone, with brutal, deadly force? That's the goddamn question!

That is what your average Emperor would do. They don't like it? Tough, have them revolt and overthrow me.
And describe "Brutal and Deadly" you mean war? Which was one of the most common things back in the age of Emperors?

Black_Cross wrote:

It's glaringly obvious, even from just this thread. In fact, i think you've shown quite well the kind of person you are.

And i think you showed quite a wonderful person you are by insinuating all cops are sadistic assholes that only cause harm to society, so in retailiation to them you throw piss at them. ...You have no right to say anything about me when the only thing you acknowledged is the fact that during a Emperor time period i would be involved with Conquests and i would insinuate laws.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

WeiWuWei wrote:

"I would use my power to go to war with random people for literally no reason, just because I can".

What the fuck, dudes.

I was just reading about Able Archer 83, a nuclear-war excersise conducted by NATO that got the Soviet leadership concerned bou at inminent first strike by NATO considering to preempt it.

US leadership was so surprised that Russians thought there would be a 1st strike from part of the NATO and lots of sources claim that this was due to "Soviet people's poor understanding of the West"...

After reading these guys and considering all of them are westerners that favour USA I wonder... is that a real poor understanding? Were such concerns so unrealistic? Unjustified?

wait
then the Soviets made 7 (or 6) days to the river Rhine?

mattabesta wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

I would make changes that would lead to a 0% unemployment, free health care, free education and affordable housing for everyone...
...as the first step.

The next step would be to raise productivity, efficiency and the living standard of all citizens.

by privatizing, right?

Heh, that's cute. Even someone as reactionary as Kenzu wouldn't privatize. He'd just give it to the government....

Quote :

And forget the Hitler part...i cant seem to describe it too you well enough, contrast on his scale of genocidal acts vs mine would be literally none.

..... You don't need to explain that, specifically to me. I understand the statistics. All that i want you to do is explain to me why your justification for brutality (war is indeed brutal, yes?) actually justifies killing anybody, let alone a significant portion of a country's civilian population.

Quote :

That is what your average Emperor would do.

So if your friends threw a bunch of people off a bridge, you'd do it too?

Quote :

They don't like it? Tough, have them revolt and overthrow me.
And describe "Brutal and Deadly" you mean war? Which was one of the most common things back in the age of Emperors?

Nice, well I go with the dictionary defintion: grossly ruthless or unfeeling. Or, in general (since grossly ruthless, in my opinion, implies unfeeling), both.

Quote :

And i think you showed quite a wonderful person you are by insinuating all cops are sadistic assholes that only cause harm to society

Ah, but i didn't insinuate that. I implied that the more violent, repressive cops (which generally means they're working in a more crime and poverty stricken area) are the model cop, from the perspective of bourgeois interests, because they repress the revolutionary urges of the people who struggle socially and economically.

So what, Rename, because you're struggling trying justify the fact that, were you a leader of a country and its military, you would war with and eventually occupy as many countries as you saw fit, you're now turning to a style of debate resembling calinis'?