MANIFESTO OF THE VANGUARD PARTY OF THE USSR

''A specter is haunting nationstates, the spectre of communism. All the ancient regions of nationstates
have banded in a liberal alliance to exorcise this specter.''
Our vanguard party shall hereby establish our contingency on:

I. Historical development-Socialism is the direct and inevitably invariable result of historical

development. Society functions as a flowing river, picking up new mud, twigs etc., eventually, it
becomes water of a different colour, usually cleaner and purer.

II. Support for the proletariat-We oppose the capitalist mode of production and capitalist exploitation.
Our party, as such, has always viewed the proletariat as the basis of our society. Structure cannot exist
without a basis. Our fight is for the proletariat.

III. Permanent revolution-Understanding that many nations had not yet achieved a developed economy
or society as a whole, therefore, as such, we advocate for the promotion of permanent revolution in
these under-developed nations.

IV. Internationalism, solidarity, sovereignty-The concept of socialism is too grand to limit to a specific
amount of regions. We oppose socialism in one country (in the case of nationstates, in one region). We
advocate a system of spreading the ideal interregionally and promoting the ideology elsewhere. We
promote solidarty in regards to our comrade regions. Once socialism has spread, we must maintain
solidarity in regards to these comrade regions. We support regional sovereignty. We demand an end to
imperialist exploitation and demand absolute self-determination and sovereignty.

V. Anti-reaction and anti-revision-We oppose all reactionary and revisionist ideologies, such as Stalinism
and a reactionary ideology such as anarcho-capitalism. We must combat these ideologies whereever
found. We do not forbid the acceptance of Stalinism as a national ideology, we respect Stalin for ending
fascism, but do not respect his revisionist ideals.

VI. Vanguardism-In opposition to our former position that the vanguard party is detrimental, we have
concluded that the Leninist-Bolshevik position that it is the only viable archetype of the socialist

revolution.

VII. Democratic centralism-The party stands for a system of democratic centralism and focus on the
expansion of the vanguard party once in the state of socialism. Only unity can save us from absolute
chaos. The party stands for a free, central, united society.

VIII. Dictatorship of the proletariat-The party understands basic marxist theory and natural progression
of the socialist revolution in response to reaction. We demand the state of dictatorship of the proletariat
as the transitional period between capitalism and socialism and a necessary element of revolution.

IX. Economic centralism and self-management-The party stands for healthy collectivization and
nationalization along with a system of self-management and the creation of proletariat soviets and
proletariat working brigades.

X. Proletarian Bonapartism-Our party takes the side of the true revolutionary, Leon Trotsky in opposition
to the revisionist Stalin's plans for the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.

What is anarcho-capitalism?
Anarcho-capitalism is a political ''philosophy'' which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of
individual private property and open, unregulated, oppressive markets. Anarcho-capitalists believe that
in the absence of statute, society would improve itself through the discipline of the free market. In an
anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by
privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation. Money, along with all
other goods and services, would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Capital is
accumulated without any regulation. Anarcho-capitalists are worse enemies than Neo-Liberals.
Polls conducted showed that the majority of these Anarcho-Capitalists were dominantly male, white,
rich kids.
We can determine that so-called Anarcho-Capitalists are overwhelmingly young, American, White males
in school. An assumption that can be made is that since they are full time students, they likely dont
work as well. We pretty much already knew this. The ideology is rarely espoused by anyone outside the
US or ethnic minority.
In other words, people whove usually never had to work a day in their lives, nor even felt what it was
like to experience racism. The very things they defend. The ability to live off other peoples labour

because they own the means of production. And supporting the abolishment of equal rights for all races
and sexes. Can it be a surprise to anyone that theyre privileged White males?
In nationstates, these morons are incarnate in Libertatem, the worst amalgamation of anarcho-capitalist
and fascist ideologies. There have been certain other regions that have co-operated with them, but
none as notable as The communist bloc, a region so reactionary it is completely anti-socialist, practically
an openly anarcho-capitalist region.
Our issue with it?
Essentially we must consider the concept of transubstantiation of Marxist theory into nationstates. Class
struggle is present in all aspects of nationstates. Contradictions are the basis of nationstates society. The
classist libertarian anarchists and the rational Marxist-Leninist sphere. These two factions are in
constant contradiction with one another.
We are to be tolerant, yes; however, tolerance of intolerance is nonetheless intolerance. We cannot
tolerate the oppressive anarcho-capitalists as they are intolerant of the proletariat.
To implement Marxism-Leninism into nationstates we must consider historical determinism as Marx set
it.
It ignores historical development; that after a certain period of time the conditions of fair competition
break down, and some companies will continue with great advantages over others despite their no
longer "deserving" it. There will always be efficiency gains to be made from economies of scale, but we
can equally argue that there are numerous economic disadvantages to the build up of monopoly and
unfair competition.
Thus, my ability to freely choose my form of work of employment will be severely curtailed if I am born a
significant amount of time after the market has been instituted. There is no sense in which I choose my
life conditions either, so this is clearly not free.
There is no reason why economics and market pressures should dictate how a society is run. Libertarians
conceive liberty in terms of one's ability to be an effective market player, thus liberty is increased the
more the market dominates social life. But any socialist could see that a truly free and fulfilling society is
a plural society, where economic imperatives are just one weave in the fabric of life and are not the
whole of it.
Anarcho capitalism is an ideology devoted to regression of society through the free market and
unregulated accumulation of capital. They do not realize that, if society is pressured by the market
alone, we would be restricted from fundamental positive freedom.
Nevertheless, it fails in its core, as its basis is the elimination of the state and implementation of the
market as the ultimate source of wealth and only element that secures the capitalist mode of
production. We know now that the state, in a capitalist dominated society, serves as this entity. There
can be no free market without a state to maintain the current societal (capitalist) mode of production.

In Nationstates, these enemies of Socialist development are regions like Libertatem, The communist
bloc (Revisionism to the point of absolute reaction) and International Republican Union.

From a viewpoint of Marxism-Leninism, we must combat neo-liberal ideologies wherever we find them.
TCB is one of the worst transgressors. To truly understand its nature, we must first understand its basis.
TCB was born from a conflict within TCR, resulting in multiple revisionists creating their own twisted
parody of a socialist region. TCB's basis was that of the principle of tolerance of intolerance, basically,
the liberal battle-cry:EVERYONE IS WELCOME!
There are multiple problems with these sorts of statements. To imply that ''all are welcome'' is to
suggest that fascists, capitalists, libertarians and all sorts of other exploiters (even the bourgeoisie) are
welcome. Allowing these sort of people to run around is nothing short of bourgeois ''democracy''. It was
this sort of mindset that brought Adolf Hitler into power.

Another principle of bourgeois liberalism and TCB is the policy of ''infinite freedom''. They accuse us of
limiting freedoms in our regions, even if it brought peace and unity to regions where these sorts of
measures were taken. Freedom, by definition, is:''the power to determine action without restraint.''
Infinite freedom means the freedom to murder, the freedom to harass, the freedom to demean, to
discriminate etc.

It is very near to anarchy, with the only difference that liberalism believes that the state is the guarantee
of freedom, whilst anarchism strives for a stateless society and system and thus rejects a state in any
form.

Thus in liberalism you have laws that the population needs to abide by. As for rest: The bourgeoisie can
do whatever they want, it is their liberal-given ordained right. You can exploit your workers all you want
as long as you do not hurt any law in the process in a liberal society. The laws however, are once again
decided by the bourgeoisie.

Liberalism as a political ideology is basically nothing else then Plutocracy without an established
monarchy, or you could also classify it as anarchism of the bourgeoisie.

The only liberty in liberalism is the liberty of the wealthy, the bourgeoisie, that make up all rules, decide
everything and earn everything. THEY are granted absolute freedom, freedom to oppress etc. THEY

control society and the means to create or change laws. The rest of society however doesn't. Thus you
can hardly call that ''freedom''.

I don't necessarily consider all freedom detrimental, obviously. Freedom from oppression, freedom from
exploitation. However, I do find some freedoms detrimental:
1. Economic freedoms (freedom of exploitation)
2. Extensive political freedoms (freedom to elect racists, exploiters...)
When I say political freedoms are detrimental, I mean in the context of liberal bourgeoisie society. In
socialism, of course there is democratic liberty with the vanguard party at the head.
As much as we may like the concept of absolute democracy, it doesn't work. Remember the holocaust...

Liberalism means they can do whatever they want even if it means others are hurt. There should be civil
freedoms (homosexuality, transgender...), but when it comes to economic or political freedom, it should
be restricted, especially in regards to economic freedoms.
The bourgeoisie depend on the ''free market'' to sustain them and their ability to exploit.

Now that TCB's failed liberalism is out of the way, let us talk about the other flaws with TCB, most of
which are in proportional relation to aforementioned critique.

TCB is infamous for its uneducated, short and baseless discussions on pointless issues OR on incredibly
volatile and despicable issues (racism, homophobia, eugenics...). TCB's liberalism inevitably breeds these
pan-liberal hybrids, brainless pawns who see nothing as important but FREEDOM.

TCB has openly monarchist officials, embassies with RACIST regions (photo evidence included) and most
infamously, their persistent love for Libertatem, an insane amalgamation of liberalism, fascism and
anarcho-capitalism, which all fit into the same box. TCB has openly renounced their support for
Libertatem, however, Libertatem operatives are still active inside TCB and TCB soldiers still support the
Libertatem invaders in completely innocent socialist regions.

Now to address another problem that comrade V-Ming already addressed in her brilliant dispatch on
false ideologies. Zennyism and the ''dear leader'' theory. I will go paragraph-by-paragraph, refuting

Zenya's revisionist ideas.

''Critique of Zennyism''

''A large factor is achieving the success of our region will be the extent to which the people rally around
the Party and Leader. The Party must be involved in multiple aspects of everyday life in our region both
socially and culturally. The Leader must always communicate and engage with the people.''
Essentialy, they're preaching a gross deviation of mass line and the vanguard party? The difference is
they include Zenya as the ''Dear leader'' breaking the fundamental principles of socialism in the process.

''Popular masses are at the center of our society, therefore the Leaders of the masses must be the
center of our region and government. Our Leader must work tirelessly for the people, representing
them at every level of government.''
Outright false. She cannot be the ''leader'' as she was elected in a frame of bourgeois democracy...

''The People must always have a voice in legislative government. Zennyism pushes for a single legislative
body where all citizens are members and elect representatives to vote on their behalf. Group
discussions between elected representatives and constituents must be regular.''
Again, this is just regurgitating the same liberal bourgeois nonsense. She cannot expect the system to
change through democratic vote. A single legislative body? What about dictatorship of the proletariat?
Why is that ignored?

''Special priority must be given to our Armed Forces. We must use the military as an essential tool in the
development and protection of our region; culturally and politically.''
Alright, I agree with you to an extent. The people do need an armed force, mainly in regards to
revolution. This principle seems fine.''

''We must use our Armed Forces as an agent of influence across the world, educating regions less
fortunate and quickly & effectively striking our Republic's enemies.''
Now they're getting into imperialism. Using their armed forces to spread their liberal bourgeois agenda
and possession of territory as well as furtherance of their goal is imperialism.

''We do not want war, nor are we afraid of it, nor do we beg for peace.''
Clearly they do want war as they've spited the NS left multiple times.

''In war, those who do not directly take up arms are to contribute to the construction and maintenance
of the domestic front and remain ideologically educated and loyal.''
Again, this principle seems fine, the problem is that it's based on a false principle that stands on the
basis of a bourgeois democracy.

''We should always stress equality and mutual respect among regions. Empathy is incredibly important
when dealing with representatives of other governments.''
Again, this is a mainstream liberal bourgeois battlecry. Empathy, mutual respect etc. This is fine to an
extent, but again, we get into tolerance of intolerance. Where does respect end?

''It is imperative to create an internal political force to ensure independence and continue our revolution
and Republican form of governance.''
I assume you're referring to the vanguard party here. This seems alright, but, once again, it's based on a
bourgeois democracy.

''Our State has the right to self-determination in order to secure happiness of its people as it sees fit.
Our Republic ensures that our officials understand the needs and wants of the people and is as inclusive
as possible.''
Yes, but they deny this right to multiple other regions.

''Bowing to foreign interests will make true political independence impossible, it threatens the region's
ability to defend the interests of the people.''
True.

''The People must always be informed of what their government is doing, public reports and

government working in public should always be wanted and supported.''

Not if this information compromises the revolution. I suppose this is a sort of mass line type theory, but
it's horribly bland and nonsensical within this context.

''New citizens are this region's future. We must strive to integrate newcomers into our society and
system as quickly as possible, being as welcoming and friendly as possible. Patience is key when working
with newcomers.''
Zennyism sounds like a strictly nationstates based ideology. A failure from the very start.

In essence, Zennyism is nothing more than basic liberal bourgeois lines regurgitated with false pretenses
of mass line, the vanguard party etc. Zennyism is NOT socialism, it is liberal bourgeoisie.

The initial conception of dialectics as a form of observing human society was set out by Georg W.
Hegel(Hegel: A Reinterpretation, 1966, Anchor Books, p.154), who set out the archetype for Marx's
dialectical materialism. Hegel described the initial structure of conflict in society. The first stage is
presented as the thesis, the status quo, the initial stage, which is followed by the antithesis, the
proposed alteration to the status quo or thesis; The conclusion of the dialectic (as it was called) was the
synthesis, the end-result, which eventually constitutied a new thesis.(Hegel: A Reinterpretation, 1966,
Anchor Books, p.154). I will get to this point and why the proposition itself is fallacious later on.

A significant concept called dialectical idealism was developed by Hegel aside from the description of
the dialectic process. Hegel argued that the concept of humanity was conceived by humans and that our
capabilities were limited by our thought. Marx observed the natural fallacious nature of this philosophy
and stated that Hegelian dialectics must be ''turned around completely''. Marx realized that natural
processes and in general, material processes, were guiding human development. This is where he
conceived dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism argues the same point as Hegel's dialectic
process, however, it sets aside the obvious fallacy of the progression of society as an idealistic process.
Marx point out that everything was governed by natural laws and humans were shaped by the society
they occupy. (Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, ed. Frederick Engels (New York:
Modern Library, no date, first published 1906), p. 25);Again, we'll get to this point later.
Philosophy as a field of study, is, as physicist Stephen Hawking puts it:''Dead'' (Stephen Hawking, The
Grand Design, 2010, Bantam Books, p.10) This essay is not meant as a work of philosophy. Philosophy is
based on pointless rhetoric and baseless assertions. Marxist Dialectics are a way of studying human
society, not philosophy.

Marx argued from a point of historical determinism, while also acknowledging the fact that nothing can
be set as an a priori scheme, thus not developing many theories of dialectics, mostly focusing on the use
of production and social interactions from a perspective of historical determinism, opposing some of
Hegel's theses(Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Afterword, Second German Ed.,
Moscow, 1970, vol. 1, p. 29).
Hegel believed dialectics to be a way of observing a general field of dispute and struggle. Developing the
main laws of dialectics, which were later built on by Engels.

1. The law of the unity and conflict of opposites

2. The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes

3. The law of the negation of the negation

For the most part these laws functioned off the natural laws that were already described by Hegel. I will
give a brief explanation of each of them. The law of unity and conflict of opposites simply states that
opposites exist, creating a struggle. For example, fire is hot and ice is cold. This is an opposite; the two
are in opposition and therefore a struggle. (K. Marx, in K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. , 2nd ed., vol. 26,
part 3, p. 307)
Quantitative change into qualitative change is simple as well. Let's take the example of a book. The book
has five hundred pages; if the book had two hundred pages it would be a slightly shorter book, the
quantity of pages decreases. If it had one page, it would no longer be a book. This is what is meant by
quality and quantity. Quality does not describe the duration of utility of the item, merely its
bounds.(Hegel: The logic, 1874. The Logic, Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. 2nd Edition.
London: Oxford University Press, p.108-109)
The law of negation of the negation is merely the dialectic feeding off the law of conflict of opposites.
The thesis is negated, creating the synthesis. Simple as that. A process that repeats constantly, yet in
different ways with slight variations.(Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1874. The Logic. Encyclopaedia of
the Philosophical Sciences. 2nd Edition. London: Oxford University Press. p.93)

As an answer to both hegelian and marxist dialectics, I have developed my own theory. It builds upon
from previously constructed dialectical laws, while still providing a critique of some previous dialectic
laws. I argue from a standpoint of absolute materialism. Seemingly immaterial aspects of life are

nonetheless material. Natural laws can be observed in the material world, society was created by
material beings and is expressed in material interactions.
1. My reflection of saturation-Social relations are, although in constant fluctutating change, constant in
the sense of direct contradiction and opposition as a constant figure, reccuring in all societies. If the
dominant social class were to inflate or ''saturate'' we would be left with a significant alteration in
inter-social relations. Capitalist thought bases itself on the common fluctuation of wealth. The problem
here is the saturation of the dominant social class. This acts somewhat in parallel with qualitative
change and quantitative change. There is only one king and there are several serfs. If there was a larger
quantity of a king, he would no longer be a king. If all serfs were kings onto themselves, that would
abolish the social term of ''king''.To basically understand the dialectic principle of saturation we must
first understand the chemical principle of saturation. Let us take the example of water and salt. When a
certain amout of salt is dissolved in the water, there can be no further dissolution. There would need to
be a larger amount of water for the rest of the salt to dissolve. In society we can observe the exact same
phenomena. In the context of a feudal society, there is one duke in one duchy. If there were twenty
dukes in one duchy, they would no longer be dukes. Within a larger context, say, a kingdom, they will
retain their social status as dukes within their own duchy. Saturation implies a larger amount than is
ordinary. The saturation of a social class changes society as a whole. The example of the dominant social
class inflating would leave the dominant social class as the recessive social class. As all reflections on
dialectics, it is relative. The scale of saturation varies relative to the scale of the stage. This cannot apply
to the recessive social class. The example of ten thousand serfs increased to an amount of fifty thousand
serfs changes nothing in society. Saturation may be observed in all aspects of human society, not only
social relations. The same applies to commodities and currency. If commodity amounts are inflated,
their value lowers. Now, we can observe a similar scenario in Norway. The average salary in Norway is
3000 euros neto (Earnings of all employees, 2012. Ssb.no (Norway). Retrieved on 2013-03-21.); Now, in
relation with a country like Belarus, in which the average salary is 400 euros neto ("Labor market".
Belstat.gov.by. Retrieved November 2013.) it is extraordinarily higher. We are to assume that the social
average in either country is the average salary, meaning that someone who earns 3000 euros neto in
Norway will have an equivalent social status as someone in Belarus who earns 400 euros neto. Now, as a
hypothetical scenario, we are to assume that if the average salary in Belarus increased to 50 000 euros
neto it would still be in equal relation to the person in Norway making 3000 euros neto, at least within
their own saturated society.

2. My reflection of unequivalence-Unequivalence exists in all aspects of society, whether directly

opposite or not. This reflection expands on the struggle and unity of opposites. Society functions
circularly. Unequivalence exists on both spectres. Not necessarily in direct opposition to the initial
thesis, but proportionaly unequivalent, therein creating a struggle. For example, fire, stone and ice. Fire
and ice are an opposition, but stone is impartial to both. Fire may melt ice and ice may quell fire, but
stone has relatively no effect. There is unequivalence between ice and stone and fire and stone, but not
a direct opposition. This is what we call an indignant relativity. Relativities express the non-opposing
unequivalent propositions. As stated above, the example of fire, stone and ice. There cannot be any

proposition or aspect that does not have any unequivalence. There is permanent unequivalence,
irrelevant of what the other proposition is. Not everything is opposite and not everything has an
opposite and therefore does not have a struggle with its opposite. Struggle exists between indignant
relativities, however small. There is unequivalence between wood and glass, yet they are not opposite,
however they are unequivalent and therefore in a struggle.

3. My reflection of material relation-The most important aspect of society is our view of societal
interactions. We can observe our preconceptions of relations between our social classes. Commodity
ownership constitutes the dominant social class. Naturally, we have preconceptions of the dominant
social class, which is immaterial. What seperates a king from a serf? If the king were insolvent, he would
still be a king, if a serf were wealthy, he would no longer be a serf, instead he would be wealthy, thereby
negating his serfdom. The constitutory motive of all social relations can be both material and non
material. An insolvent king is nonetheless a king. This is dependent on the non-material social status of
the involved person. A bankrupt landlord is no longer wealthy and therefore no longer has power, his
power is material, measured in money. Immaterial social relations are proportional to material relations
as a higher social class is constituted by immaterial relations, which are based on material relations. The
bourgeoisie are constituted by their ownership of the means of production, which are material, but their
seperation is nevertheless immaterial. As mentioned above, they are proportional and based on one
another, but not necessarily equivalent. I am not stating that these relations are directly idealistic, what
I'm saying is that they are viewed as such. They are material as they were developed by material
beings:humans. They are societal pre-conceptions created by us. There is no objective weight behind
them. They are immaterial only in our conception, even if they are constructed by materials.

4. My reflection of independent alteration-Contradictions and struggles within societies exist. The

fundamental principle of motion entails that motion is constant. Motion is in and of itself change,
however relatively small. Constant change cannot resolve a contradiction with an unrelated alteration.
Independent alteration is the principle of motion seperated from contradictions. Let's take the example
of a maggoty loaf of bread, the contradiction being the dependency of the maggots on the bread and
vice versa. If we take a bite out of the loaf of bread, the contradiction remains even with alteration.

5. My reflection of interdepdency of the outcome on the circumstances and vice versa-In all aspects we
must consider the tendency of the outcome (synthesis) being dependent on its preceeding state (thesis)
and vice versa. If the synthesis is the alteration of the thesis, therefore it can be concluded that they
were in connection with each other. They are interdependent. We must note that the outcome of the
struggle of the antithesis and thesis is evident in the synthesis. Meaning that whatever circumstances
brought the initial struggle about will be equivalent to the ones the synthesis, as it becomes a thesis,
acts under. As provided, if a material entity creates a concept, that concept is also material. If I created a
social preconception that all iron is made out of glass, that preconception would be material, as it was

created by a material entity and its effects are measured by material reality.

6. My reflection of contradiction of the synthesis onto itself-The progression of the synthesis presented
as a thesis is the general contradiction of itself. The synthesis is the thesis, synthesis and antithesis
altogether. The proposition within the synthesis is the notion of presenting it as a thesis, which is in and
of itself an antithesis. The final stage presented as the first stage is the negation or contradiction of
itself. As it is a repetative process, this is necessary for the progression of the thesis, unless it is
independently altered.

7. My reflection of essential reduction-A is identical to A, therefore B is identical to B. If A+B=A+B,

A+B-B=A. This does not work. Any instance of the merger of two coefficients into one whole, one union,
one functions off the other. A+B consists of A and B. If A+B were to lose one of its components, let us
assume A, then A+B would become B. If A+B becomes B, B is altered as it no longer works off A. Let us
take the example of a tree. We are to assume a tree has two basic components, its leaves and its trunk.
If leaves were to be cut from the equation of the components of the tree, the remaining component
would be its trunk, which cannot function properly without leaves, meaning that B is no longer B. In the
case of human society, let's consider the example of social hierarchy. Social hierarchy is composed of:
The notion of hierarchy and the execution of the idea of hierarchy. We are to assume that the latter is B
and the former is A. So, if we removed either of the components from the equation of social hierachy,
there would no longer be social hierarchy, in other words: B needs A in order to be B. The execution of
hierarchy needs the idea to be an exectution and the idea needs an execution or it is not a manifestation
and therefore exempt. To give a simpler example, let us assume that a married couple are equal to A+B.
The husband is A and the wife is B. If they underwent a process of divorce, the equation would sum up
to A+B-A, which would not equal B, as the husband is no longer a husband.

These reflections will come to serve as a critique of previous forms of dialectics. I am not criticizing
materialism as an entirety, I am criticizing idealism and lacking dialectical contributions. For a correct
understanding of the differentiation of dialectics and philosophy we must consider the fallacious nature
of baseless assertions made by philosophers. Philosophy serves as a means of viewing the world.
Dialectics is a form of understanding and observing human society, natural laws and humanity in
general, not philosophical or theological questions. Philosophy exists as a substitute for actual
observation and basic logic. Philosophy is concerned with posing rhetorical questions and understanding
the very universe we occupy in a spiritual and idealistic way. The idea of dialectics is in opposition of
philosophy.
To quote Karl Marx:''The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point,
however, is to change it.''(Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, 1845, Thesis 11, Marx Engels Selected
Works,(MESW), Volume I, p. 15)

The hegelian conception of dialectics as an idealistic set of ideas is nonsensical. Everything is expressed
in materials. Natural laws, social interactions, struggles...
We are to logically conclude that most idealistic concepts are in fact, material. Let us take the example
of the union of individuality and universality is the basic notion of deriving individual traits from societal
interaction on a basic level. To give an example, if a social class exemplified a specific trait, such as
intelligence, which can also be tracked in one specific entity. Thefore, individuality and universality
merge; a basic idea of intricacy. However, any traits or features exemplified are evident in the material
world, their effects can be observed. From this we derive the basic concept that, if any trait exemplified
by any individual contemporary and in parallel with the current societal tendency, the individual will be
pressured by material conditions of society. The universal trait, which can be a individual entity, can be
exemplified in one single entity, namely a human being. The trait is exemplified by the human being as a
force on the environment, thefore it is material.
Concepts within the mind are material. They are conceived by material entities and are therefore
dependent on the material entities. If said entities were to cease to exist, so would the notions they
developed in their minds.
The marxist form of dialectics is flawed. All examples of dialectics developed by Marx, Engels and Hegel
have relative exceptions, just to show that nothing can be set a priori without certain relativities. This is
not to say that they are incorrect entirely, merely too broad to consider various exceptions within
society.
All these connect with the initial critiques of previous forms of dialectics. The thesis is contradictory onto
itself as it implements a new thesis, being itself. It cannot be both the thesis, antithesis and synthesis all
in one. As an example of the dialectic process' manifestation, we can take any struggle. If a contrary
proposition is proposed and accepted, we thus establish the synthesis through the antithesis. The issue
here is that eventually, two weeks becomes the status quo. Meaning that the thesis is the snythesis and
antithesis all in one. This is what I call a contradiction in this case. It is also possible for the synthesis
being the initial thesis. For example, if my proposition fails, the synthesis is the conclusion of the current
status.
The reflection of interdependency is the solution of the issue that comes to play when we talk about
social dependency. Humans are dependent on society and vice versa. When it comes to opposites, there
are relativities. If I'm raised in a society that values licking coins, I will be pressured to lick coins myself.
The problem here is the fact that humans developed a society that licks coins. The proposition of
outcome means that we can conclude that the synthesis is dependent on its preceding state. That
means, that if something is changed, we can conclude that the change was related to the initial thesis.
This is a double proposition, as it presents two reflections.
I completely agree with the statement that if the amout of something is altered, we are left with a
different form of said item or even a completely different item altogether, this is what the reflection of
saturation is, it just builds further upon that. If the quantity of some social class (the dominant social
class) were to change, society as a whole would change, not just the class in question.

Concepts are material, if not materially present; they are evident in material existance. How do we
support this claim? We are to assume that all concepts and propositions are invented by humanity. If
something is expressed in the material world, it is material, thus the obsolescence of philosophy and
idealism. Whatever shows itself in the material world in any way (it influences interactions, thoughts
etc.) is henceforth material. Dialectics serves as an observational science concerned with the
development of struggles, contradictions and human society in general.
Proper Understanding of Marxist theory is characterized by policies and practices based on the principle
that in each country, the means of attaining ultimate communist goals must be dictated by the
conditions of that particular country, rather than by a pattern set in another country. It is distinct from
Socialism in One Country theory as we advocate cooperation between nations through independence,
while at the same time pursuing socialism in whatever ways best suited to particular nations. On the
other hand Socialism in One Country focuses on fast industrialization and modernization in order to
compete with what Stalin perceived as the more advanced nations of the west. Our ideas specifically
mean that the communist goal should be pursued independently of (and often in opposition to) what
we refer to as the imperialist policies of the Soviet Union.
The main policy is self-management and the theory of associated labor (profit sharing policies and
worker-owned industries). Worker co-operatives are conducted regionally and managed by regional
councils of workers. Enterprises must be placed in the hands of the people through collectivization.
A socialist economic system is based on some form of social ownership of the means of production,
which may mean autonomous cooperatives or direct public ownership; wherein production is carried
out directly for use. Where markets are utilized for allocating inputs and capital goods among economic
units, the designation market socialism is used. When planning is utilized, the economic system is
designated a planned socialist economy. Non-market forms of socialism usually include a system of
accounting based on calculation-in-kind or a direct measure of labor-time as a means to value resources
and goods.
In today's world, every economy is based upon a specific political philosophy and ideology. The three
prominent ideologies that are used by the government to orient and plan their economy are capitalism,
mixed economy, and socialism. There are several different arguments about the origin of socialism;
some say that it is an age-old concept that is derived form biological symbiosis, where two elements of
plants and animals survive with the help of each other. Thinkers, such as Karl Marx and Jnos Kornai,
established some definite principles and theories of socialism, upon which a socialist economic system is
based.
Socialism as an economic system is based upon the principle of welfare of the people. As opposed to
capitalism, it is based upon the principle that economic activities should be undertaken so that people
would be able to use goods produced thereof, instead of employing the production for profit. Many
philosophers had previously refused to believe in this system as a legitimate one, but countries with this
ideology have proved the importance and success of the element of socialism in the governance of any
economy. This has eventually led to the evolution of mixed economies.

Ownership by Government: The principal characteristic of such an economy is the governmental

ownership and nationalization of key production sectors. Though, in theory, almost all firms and
companies should be nationalized, in practice, such a transfer from private to public is (without the
process of revolution) almost impossible. Due to this, governments are promoted to rely on some
private establishments that are largely regulated and managed by governmental laws and officials.
Organizations that are involved in production in many cases are co-operative organizations, instead of
firms and companies. This is a mark of a mixed economy, which we oppose. Through revolution, all
means of production should be nationalized.
Progressive Taxation and Wealth Redistribution: Often considered to be a drawback of this method, the
taxation system progressively taxes higher income with higher tax percentages. The collected mammoth
tax is then redistributed with the help of several public welfare schemes and policies.
Price Control: Another distinct feature is the technique of price control. Prices of commodities are not
fixed by demand and supply analysis, but are fixed by the government, with respect to the necessity and
nature of the commodity.
Nationalization and Centralization: A socialism-driven system is basically operated by a central
government. The nationalization and centralization of all avenues of production are handled by one
centrally-based government, which also frames the fiscal policies. The success of this kind of an
economy is found in such a convention where fiscal policies so implemented are executed by regional
and grass root level administration, with an absolute timing and discipline. The economy, as a whole,
thus, becomes very, very successful. The GDP shoots up almost instantaneously, and poverty is
nonexistant.
The government plans everything well, and it is all well-coordinated to reduce unemployment and
increase productivity and profit.
Resources are utilized efficiently, and production of goods takes place keeping the profit in mind.
Since all citizens are treated equally, they all feel a responsibility towards the state. The government
provides equal pay packages, free education, housing, and health facilities. Consequently, social welfare
is maximized. What needs to be understood about capitalist society is its many social contradictions.
Commodities have an exchange and a use value, but their use value is produced for their exchange
value.
In a socialist society the law of value is abolished, thereby ending bourgeois hegemony and proletariat
exploitation.[/box]
Correct Marxism-Leninism supports universal social welfare. Improvements in public health and
education, provision of child care, provision of state-directed social services, and provision of social
benefits are deemed to help to raise labour productivity and advance a society in development towards
a communist society. It advocates universal education with a focus on developing the proletariat with
knowledge, class consciousness, and understanding the historical development of communism.

Marxist-Leninist policy on family law has typically involved: the elimination of the political power of the
bourgeoisie, the abolition of private property, and an education that teaches citizens to abide by a
disciplined and self-fulfilling lifestyle dictated by the social norms of communism as a means to establish
a new social order.
Marxism-Leninism supports the emancipation of women and ending the exploitation of women. The
advent of a classless society, the abolition of private property, society collectively assuming many of the
roles traditionally assigned to mothers and wives, and women becoming integrated into industrial work
has been promoted as the means to achieve women's emancipation. Expanding the class struggle and
the conflict of opposites, we also support LGBT equality. Marxism-Leninism is an egalitarian philosophy.
Our main idea concerning society is the creation of a proletarian hybrid; a class concious, educated,
capable individual. A socialist society should be achieved through violent revolution, as is the
perscription of historical determinism.

The party functions as the people themselves. The voice of the people is represented by the party.
Democratic centralism and the creation of the revolutionary vanguard are necessary, in nationstates,
this is the revolutionary council along with the communist party. Vanguards serve as the voice of the
people and are necessary for the socialist ideal. The most important tenet is the period of centralized
dictatorship. The period of dictatorship of the proletariat i.e. socialism must not be left in a power
vacuum, therefore, the state must be centralized.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a term which garners the attention and use of many individuals
when such topics as Socialism and Communism are in discussion, and this can especially be the case in a
conversation on the topic of the Soviet Union, or its various satellite states, but what exactly does the
term itself mean? There is, indeed, a grave misinterpretation of the application of the dictatorship of the
proletariat, in the terms of its functions within a sense of governance. This misunderstanding, of the
general function of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and the understanding of why this
misunderstanding occurs, is the topic of this piece of writing.

The application of the word Dictatorship is perhaps what leads to this immediate conclusion on the
Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Dictatorship is commonly understood, in Western society, to be in
referral to the vestment of absolute political power in a singular individual, or an elite group of
individuals. The connotation of dictatorship is commonly associated with military juntas and a myriad of
other forms of tyrannical governance. This is however not the case in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Indeed the government which would come about through the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is more
likely to be one of a direct democratic nature.

As the class system, of the two classes of proletariat and bourgeoisie, is eradicated from the economy,

through the implementation of the democratic control of the means of production, the classes
themselves merge into one. The proletariat who formerly worked the means of production for the
bourgeoisie now own and control the means of production, and thus become somewhat similar to the
bourgeoisie, while still maintaining their proletarian class characteristics. As a result of this merger, the
economic situation becomes one in which all individuals are denotatively members of the Proletariat.
Through the application of the word dictatorship, in the sense of total vestment of absolute political
power, to the proletariat, the definition of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat becomes clear. The
Dictatorship of the Proletariat is thus the vestment of absolute political power in the proletariat. As the
proletariat has become all inclusive, through the application of the democratic control of the means of
production, this means, in a single statement, the vestment of absolute political power in the people,
or as it is more commonly known as, direct democratic governance.
In this manner, it can be understood that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a form of dictatorship
that Western society is most familiar with, in this scenario, but rather a form of directly controlled
democratic government where the people have the absolute control of their political situation. Such a
scenario can be held to contrast to the general perception of the terminology, in that its function is
opposite to this perception.
Perhaps the most tedious and arduous debate of the modern age. Let's delve into the principles of
capitalism. Capitalism is based around the accumulation of capital, in which money is invested resulting
in the further accumulation of capital. Let's make a simple example of a large corporation (say
McDonalds) that continues to spread to foreign markets (Europe, Asia...). McDonalds arrives in a small
town and sets itself up, however, there's competition in town. An old and popular local store threatens
McDonalds' business, it creates competition. McDonalds drives it out of business, they subsidize it,
including it in their own monopoly.
If we take this example and extrapolate it: small businesses have no chance if they form and
competition to large corporations.
Now let's get into the contradictions of capitalism and the law of value. The financial capital and profit of
a monopoly is dependent on their commodities' value. A commodity's use value means the
consumption of commodity X. Let's say X=bread. I eat the bread, thereby utilizing its use value. Its
exchange value may be determined by its objective value and the capability of exchange. Commodity Y
can be exchanged for 2X...It is dependent on commodity X and commodity Y's quality. This is a
contradiction.
The law of value is the principle of economic exchange of the products of human labour: the
exchange-values of those products in trade are proportional to the average amounts of human
labour-time which are currently socially necessary to produce them.
X quantity of product = Y quantity of average labour hours = Z quantity of money
Human labour has no value in capitalist society, its PRODUCTS do. This is where we get to exploitation.

The proletariat has no other choice but to earn a living wage off their socially necessary labour time.
Another distinct aspect of capitalism is the creation of fictitious capital. What is fictitious capital?
Fictitious capital is the opposite of real capital. Fictitious capital is the essence of fake or credit money,
usually expressed on stock ownership. With the development of interest-bearing capital and the credit
system, all capital seems to double itself, and sometimes treble itself, by the various modes in which the
same capital, or perhaps even the same claim on a debt, appears in different forms in different hands.
The greater portion of this 'money-capital' is purely fictitious. All the deposits, with the exception of the
reserve fund, are merely claims on the banker, which, however, never exist as deposits.
Profit can be made purely from trading in a variety of financial claims existing only on paper.
As I said in example 1. the proletariat has no other choice but to throw their hate in with the capitalists,
the owners of the means of production. They need to turn in their socially necessary labour time in
order to make profit. Capitalism produces wealth of an individual, not the wealth of society. It's better if
we're all moderately wealthy than the majority being on the edge of poverty and 1% being in absolute
control.
The practice of stimulus spending is most commonly attributed to socialism; however, stimulus spending
is a prevalent method even in capitalist nations. The first argument capitalists seem to establish is that
economic growth is the key to an egalitarian society. This is outright false. This sort of argument was
beautifully debunked by Karl Marx.
Before we get into that and the law of value, let's ask ourselves what a society is. A society, according to
Merriam-webster is: 'people in general thought of as living together in organized communities with
shared laws, traditions, and values'
The emphasis on the PEOPLE, not the economy. Society functions dependent on itself. Humans maintain
it and it maintains humans; if either dependency were to be interrupted we would be left in a state of
absolute chaos.
The primary motivator of human society is profit. The lower class' profit depends on their labour. Labour
is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but it has no value itself.(Karl Marx, Capital,
Volume I, Penguin edition, 1976)
Therefore we must ask ourselves: 'Is a society that values the economy over its people even a society?'
There can be no communist states as communism demands the abolition of the state as a repressive
body. Now let's continue with the argument. There is an incentive; 'From each according to his ability, to
each according to his need'(Marx, Karl (1875). "Part I". Critique of the Gotha Program)
However much you put into the collective (i.e. a doctor helps people medically) you will receive FROM
the collective (i.e. food, housing, clothing...). Again, what you are referring to is socialism. In socialism
salaries are on the relative same status, yes; however, the transitional period of socialism is necessary
for the implementation of communism and the final liberation of mankind.

Why not attempt to pursue an altruistic worldview? That's what the collective is for. You put into the
collective and you receive from the collective.
And just how do we change people's beliefs? Capitalism is the issue, worker exploitation is the issue.
What's good for the collective is good for us all.
Altruism is achievable. Communism is the perfect system in which equality is created. Our ideologies
change with time as does our society; they work off one another. The people impact society and vice
versa. This is where dialectical materialism comes in. We change the society and the society changes us.
How do we change society? Through violent revolution, through the uprising of the oppressed masses,
the downing of the bourgeois.
Marshal Josip Broz Tito has been labelled everything from ''revisionist'' to ''fascist'' mostly due to his
policy of Self-management. The mainstream socialist crowd seem to misunderstand what
self-management even is. An idiotic statement made by a Soviet official in 1963 was ''It would mean that
whoever lived on a gold mine would be richer than someone who lived on a mountain of dung''
This is a deep misunderstanding of self-management theory. This sort of problem was solved by Edvard
Kardelj when he introduced the theory of associated labour. This program, which sought to address
problems inherent in the highly centralized Soviet model of socialism, was codified in the Law on
Associated Labour. Each Yugoslav worker belonged to a Basic Organization of Associated Labour that
was based on the precise role played by the worker in the production process. Literally, the workers
owned the means of production; In form, through the collective.
The original self-management concept redesignated enterprises as work organizations of associated
labor and divided them into smaller units at the level of factory departments. Each smaller unit, a BOAL,
was a self-managed entity, financially and commercially independent. As members of basic
organizations, workers had the right to attend general meetings and elect and serve on workers'
councils. The councils were elected bodies that formulated business policy and plans, made investment
and borrowing decisions, approved enterprise accounts, and gave final approval to directors and
management boards. Despite these extensive nominal powers, however, decisions by the workers'
councils were heavily influenced by enterprise directors, who were appointed by the League of
Communists of Yugoslavia, as the CPY was called after 1952. Only one-third of the committees
nominating enterprise directors could come from the councils; the remainder were members of local
communes and trade unions. In the final step, the workers' council chose from the nominating
committee's list of candidates.

Now, a problem of self management was in the agricultural sector. Many of the collective plots were in
term, reclaimed by the kulaks. No form of socialism is flawless, especially not self-management. The
system could easily be abused. We could view self-management and the theory of associated labour to
be the more comfortable theory, especially for the workers (for whom socialism exists). A conflating
system is collectivization, advocated by the soviet union. What many fail to notice is that all means of

production ARE put into the collective. Instead of the state owning it, the workers literally own it.

A review of 2014 in regards to nationstates and ideological dogma

There seems to be a disproportional tendency, especially on the radicalized poles, to stick to dogma
above else. While most state that radicalization requires a specific set of dogma, I find it the exact
opposite. I find dogmatic doctrine to be, mostly, a detriment. There has to be a basis, but the structure
is for us to create given our circumstances. The basis was initial Marxist theory, Trotskyism,
Luxemburgism and Leninism. We must contemplate nationstates as a platform for association and
discussion. Nationstates, in its initial concept, is a breeding ground and melting pot of ideology.
Ideologies are birthed, die out, spread etc.
Dogma is the basic component of nationstates. Without dogma, we cannot have a specific ideology,
without ideology we cannot have nationstates.
Reflections on conflicts on the left
The problem with dogmatic leftism is its broad meaning. What we consider leftism, is marxism.
Naturally, as we view both as archetypes for our progress. However, say, a liberal may view leftism as
liberalism (which I proved fallacious in my dispatch on liberalism), a social democrat may view social
democracy. Leftism is a broad ideology with infinite denominations.
That is the main issue that the nationstates ''left'' faces. With reactionary regions such as TCB arising,
the term ''leftism'' is even further augmented in meaning. The term ''leftist'' should never be used to
refer to a Marxist.
Now, to go on a basis of absolute practicality. Most of these conflicts come from an enormous power
struggle within TCR. Both the leftist union and the communist bloc were formed because of
disagreement with TCR and look at how they vary. TCB is an amalgamation of immaturity and
reactionism, the leftist union is an amalgamation of skepticism, radicalism and absolute dogmatic
devotion.
One basic broad ideology may birth several denominations that both identify as one.
Reflections on the nationstates extreme right
Rightism, another broadened ideology. The nationstates right is the practice (and dogmatic devotion) to
a basic notion of absolute hatred and bigotry and a notion of absolute freedom and lack of regulation. A
completely broad term, yet again.
On one side we have Libertatem, an anarcho-capitalist region devoted to what they label as ''liberty'',
which is in all essence, absolute freedom, which is harmful to others (as I explained in my critique of
liberalism). True freedom is freedom from freedom. You may have all freedom you wish as long as it
does not go against others' freedoms.

On the other side we have the Greater german reich and the fascist union. Regions solely dedicated to
the spread of bigotry and racism. Regions who based their dogma off this notion.
Even though the right forms two completely different ideologies, both must be combated. As a
sub-denomination of the left, we are a contradiction of the right and must therefore combat it.