The Mamdani Act would amend existing immigration law to prohibit the admission and naturalization of any noncitizen who is or was a member of, affiliated with, or advocates for a Chinese communist, communist, socialist, Islamic fundamentalist or other totalitarian party—or any organization that advocates those ideologies. Under its deportation provisions, a noncitizen already in the United States could be removed if they engage in advocacy for socialism, communism, Marxism or Islamic fundamentalism, distribute or publish material promoting those ideologies or hold membership in affiliated organizations at any point after admission.
You know he is a much needed anti-toxin, especially when they name a bill after him. Let the healing begin.
Mate, the USSR wasn’t even communist. Because communism doesn’t have a government run by elites and a dictator as a sole leader. It’s a wrong interpretation of what communism actually is, because bad people see a way to abuse the system to gain wealth and power. This is what happens everywhere. Rotten apples do not play fair and because of that always have an advantage in gaining positions of power. This happens everywhere. The USSR, China, modern day Russia, the US, etc.
Yes, that makes complete sense. Almost like democracy/socialism/communism is really just rhetoric for power and control.
No it’s not. They are concepts of how to have a society. They are different structures. The biggest issue with them is that in most cases they didn’t take into account the systems can be abused. Its hard to avoid abuse and corruption, as the systems are very complex. The more complex, the more opportunities there are for people to exploit.
I can’t remember who it was. But some wise person said that people applying for jobs that hold power, should automatically be rejected. The only people who should have those jobs should be dragged against their will and put there, and should only be allowed to leave when they did good.
Next to that I believe people with those jobs should have proper background checks, psychological tests and IQ tests. And they should always be held accountable for their actions.
I think this is necessary to have systems like communism and democracy work somewhat decently, with a reduced chance of abuse of power. But I prefer anarchism, where there are no country borders, no huge huge governments who dictate their rules but small communities who manage themselves the way that works best for them.
I think we are splitting hairs here. I get you believe these concepts exist outside of reality as an ideal. I just don’t see it that way anymore. They are just excuses powerful and well connected people use to create the consent of the governed. The propaganda if you will.
We are “democratic socialist state” or we are “unitary communist state” is inconsequential to the reality of policy and how the government(s) actually work.
I agree with the reasoning that those who want power should not have it and those who don’t want power generally make better leaders as far as creating policies that benefit society as a whole. As opposed to just special interest groups.
We would have to create an new form of government that was designed to resist corruption instead of embracing it to change this all to common dynamic.
Having a pool of qualified and randomly selected individuals for representation is one idea I have heard. I think we need a truly radical approach to shake off the olgiarchies that the world is currently controlled by.
Just like democracy, communism, socialism, anarchism, etc these ideals are just that. Unless we can translate these ideals to actual passed and enforced policies they are nothing but lip service.
Call me jaded, but with the ever increasing worldwide wealth gaps no system has any answers and the few examples of anarchism, such as Rojava, have already been absorbed by the state.
It seems anarchism could only exist in a vacuum which points out the need to develop a real set of enforceable and attainable policies to make it work alongside a state actor.