Illegalize legal left?
Sounds desperate for the Illegal Right!
Last time, while browsing, I sought some shallow-minded comments, responses from the hollow minded individuals, who kept on assailing the progressive left yet giving little solution except "supporting the status quo" and other similar action.
"Illegalize the left!"
"Return the Anti-Subversion law!"
"Long live Democracy!"
"Death to the Communists!"
These are the chants of the right wingers as they kept on opposing the progressive left, but then despite venting their irrationally-inclined rage, they are becoming purely anti-Democratic than anti-left in speaking social affairs. They may have defended Democracy, but whose Democracy they are defending, the poor or the elite?
Remembering Lenin's statement, their Democracy, their Liberty seemingly end up this, as Lenin said:
"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners."
And somehow it mirrors the fact these people, shouting "Long live Democracy", "I oppose the anti-trust laws" or even speaking Ayn Rand's quotations in front of the struggling people really wanted "Democracy" as theirs while dictating over the oppressed masses.
In addition to their irrationally motivated sentiment, contrary to the sentiments of the legal left, based much on the realities happened, they (the illegal right) may have spoke of truth behind the enemy's act, yet making it too exaggerated to the point of subjectively assailing them very much. God forbid, they may have assailed the left, yet do they have solutions in regards to the crisis? These people, again have do definite solutions except "praying", "cooperate with the authorities" (even most of them are oppressive in nature) tends to divert the people from the shining path of revolution, just because "they wanted to limit movements into their "democratic" processes, that in fact, un-democratic but polyarchic in character.
And secondly, I even recalled a fool who evenly spoke this, he even branded it as a "revolution" yet how come it is a revolution if it limits to an individual than to a society? As he said:
"Working hard despite paying less is a contribution for the country, and if you save you may use it for livelihood since it may help you in helping others...You must not rely on the government..."
Fine,
But then, it simply limits the way of change from the society to the individual, from the general to a particular. How come that person, speaking of revolution meant working hard yet paying less and saving it for a mere purpose like setting up a business that in fact, fuels competition under the capitalists than progression? Isn't it too "self-oriented" as we do it in an actual manner-worse since it doesn't contribute to a genuine nation building? He may have stated Henry Sy or Lucio Tan as an example, but they came mostly from a merchant background (as most Chinese people are merchants and retailers since the start), so where is productivity there if we emphasize on the market than on the bases of industry?
After all, that person is a right winger who spoke of "change" yet what kind of change that person spoken of? Right-wingers spend a lot of time assailing the left, they wanted to divert the people from the real revolutionary path and of a progressive perspective, what they wanted is to keep the nation under a stunted growth and an elitist perspective, emphasising the role of their "tradition" than "progression" despite venting their words like "Democracy" and "Liberty."
In assessing their desperate and stupid act, they are even too "illegal" to illegalize the legal left. Will they illegalize anything starting from the trade unions? The student federations and councils? The mass organizations? Burning progressive books and imposing absolute censorship? What kind of Democracy speaking of if they meet their ends away as they could-it even unveil their illegality worse as their left enemies. It is like you are a Bourbon venting Jacobin rhetoric, a Romanov loyalist speaking the words of the Octobrists!
And again, like what Lenin said, they are fighting for the slave-owners, for the lumpen-bourgeois who had their own agendas obviously hidden in a sheet o "Democratic Process" and "Liberation." And as I analyze them, they are too Right to call themselves advocators of change.
"Illegalize the left!"
"Return the Anti-Subversion law!"
"Long live Democracy!"
"Death to the Communists!"
These are the chants of the right wingers as they kept on opposing the progressive left, but then despite venting their irrationally-inclined rage, they are becoming purely anti-Democratic than anti-left in speaking social affairs. They may have defended Democracy, but whose Democracy they are defending, the poor or the elite?
Remembering Lenin's statement, their Democracy, their Liberty seemingly end up this, as Lenin said:
"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners."
And somehow it mirrors the fact these people, shouting "Long live Democracy", "I oppose the anti-trust laws" or even speaking Ayn Rand's quotations in front of the struggling people really wanted "Democracy" as theirs while dictating over the oppressed masses.
In addition to their irrationally motivated sentiment, contrary to the sentiments of the legal left, based much on the realities happened, they (the illegal right) may have spoke of truth behind the enemy's act, yet making it too exaggerated to the point of subjectively assailing them very much. God forbid, they may have assailed the left, yet do they have solutions in regards to the crisis? These people, again have do definite solutions except "praying", "cooperate with the authorities" (even most of them are oppressive in nature) tends to divert the people from the shining path of revolution, just because "they wanted to limit movements into their "democratic" processes, that in fact, un-democratic but polyarchic in character.
And secondly, I even recalled a fool who evenly spoke this, he even branded it as a "revolution" yet how come it is a revolution if it limits to an individual than to a society? As he said:
"Working hard despite paying less is a contribution for the country, and if you save you may use it for livelihood since it may help you in helping others...You must not rely on the government..."
Fine,
But then, it simply limits the way of change from the society to the individual, from the general to a particular. How come that person, speaking of revolution meant working hard yet paying less and saving it for a mere purpose like setting up a business that in fact, fuels competition under the capitalists than progression? Isn't it too "self-oriented" as we do it in an actual manner-worse since it doesn't contribute to a genuine nation building? He may have stated Henry Sy or Lucio Tan as an example, but they came mostly from a merchant background (as most Chinese people are merchants and retailers since the start), so where is productivity there if we emphasize on the market than on the bases of industry?
After all, that person is a right winger who spoke of "change" yet what kind of change that person spoken of? Right-wingers spend a lot of time assailing the left, they wanted to divert the people from the real revolutionary path and of a progressive perspective, what they wanted is to keep the nation under a stunted growth and an elitist perspective, emphasising the role of their "tradition" than "progression" despite venting their words like "Democracy" and "Liberty."
In assessing their desperate and stupid act, they are even too "illegal" to illegalize the legal left. Will they illegalize anything starting from the trade unions? The student federations and councils? The mass organizations? Burning progressive books and imposing absolute censorship? What kind of Democracy speaking of if they meet their ends away as they could-it even unveil their illegality worse as their left enemies. It is like you are a Bourbon venting Jacobin rhetoric, a Romanov loyalist speaking the words of the Octobrists!
And again, like what Lenin said, they are fighting for the slave-owners, for the lumpen-bourgeois who had their own agendas obviously hidden in a sheet o "Democratic Process" and "Liberation." And as I analyze them, they are too Right to call themselves advocators of change.
