[pp.int.general] Why Members left

[aloa5]

Max Moritz Sievers schrieb:
> aloa5 wrote:
>> Max Moritz Sievers schrieb:
>>> aloa5 wrote:
>> AND someone wich has the "extremistic" point of view of the PP´s will
>> say "yes" to the PP... and it does not matter what they say about
>> communism.
> 
> No, it's very important if the PP wants communism or not.

For whom?

>>>> And this ist the point you did not thought over (enough). This persons
>>>> will *also* not be very happy about a "maybe". Because *no* answer can
>>>> be a "really yes" or a "really no" to nuclear power or to anarchism or
>>>> to communism.
>>> Of course it can.
>> Then it is easy for you to explain this logical in your terms. :)
> 
> Take me as an example. I am totally against nuclear power and communism and 
> totally for anarchy.

Really - you are a very good example. You are in first line for getting 
the PP´s having anarchy as an aim - aren´t you? What would you say if 
the PP´s will NOT choose this, leave it at the point of "maybe" and 
later on make decisions wich are *really* not anarchistic?


>>>> The voters does not know.
>>> They do not know what?
>> If they wake up a morning and have a look at a newspaper - suprisingly
>> finding an article in it explaining them that they votet for anarchists
>> or communists or nazis.
> 
> If we explain it in our international manifesto, they could have known.

Then it´s not C) (or the C)-related part of A)) - the one we talk about 
here. Then we talk about A) - a defined aim and way.

>> It becomes only then a "direction" if you can place it into in a greater
>> context, a vision. But at that time a party or even a member of
>> parliament has to decide about issues wich are *not* "neutral" you get
>> it anyway.
> 
> There is nothing wrong in having a "direction". "Neutrality" is stupid. We 
> need a different direction than the present politics is heading.

You think so. >90% of the Western World imho prefer not to exchange this 
so called "present politic" into communism or anarchism.


>>> This is answer A explained. We (PPDE) do that.
>> No - this ist not answer A). Answer A) is a clear "no" on a single
>> issue. Answer D) is an explanation of a vision, open for every "yes" and
>> "no" on the way to reach this vision.
> 
> Are you a parser? If you have a clear vision and do everything to achieve it, 
> then you are an ultra extremist. I doesn't matter in the least if there were 
> some "yes votes". It depends on the question if the "right" answer is yes or 
> no.

That is not true. If someone the vision "a future without nuclear 
plants" then he can choose yes or no today - depending on the *actual* 
situation. It is just the same as you want to go from A to B with some 
eggs between. You CAN say - "straight ist "right" - no matter if these 
eggs will break, costs life or not".  Then you are an extremist.. and 
you will never reach B) because no one (except other extremists) will go 
with you.

But you can say - O.K.... I want to try reaching B, but wait - if we 
built a bridge or go over point C) then we will reach this aim. Even 
when it means to make other steps then straight forward.


>>>> The Germans failed to choose this way D). Without this, without even
>>>> *understand the need of* forming a vision of a better future for the
>>>> voters, you will never get a chance to form anything - no seats, no
>>>> success, no influence on the long run.
>>> Meine Rede seit 33.
>> If this would be true you would not like to form an aim like anarchism.
> 
> [X] You understand what anarchy means.
> 

[ ] You understand what politic means ;)


Regards
ALOA