Dap Note Generator: Fill & Download for Free

Let me see what DAP has done :Non Malays cant speak Malay.Absolutely true - based on my experience around Penang and KL. Expatriates loved the food and the climate here, they are non Malays, thus they couldn’t speak Malay.For the citizens, unless the older generations, i have not met one non-Malays of not able to converse in Malay.Anti Malay and Anti MuslimUnless there’re statement and action, given as proof anywhere in non-fake media, im gonna skip this one.Care only for the non-MalaysSame as point 2.The 3 points above are what was created by Extreme Malay Nationalist Movement (EMNM). Let me point to some similar movements or events.White nationalist hate groups have grown 55% in Trump era, report findsNazi Partypoint no.1 would be the easiest to relate for the Malays in Malaysia; migrants of hundreds years earlier -> claimed as native -> nationalist movement to kick migrants that came in latter -> the aborigines remained poor and sidelined. ( Trump 2020 )This EMNM campaign became more prominent since BN’s defeat during 2008 election. Even more so after 2018 election. To the point that if an asteroid hit Kota Bahru, it would automatically be labelled as DAP/Chinese’s doings. Do note that such campaign has been silent ever since PN grabbed over to rule the country since March 2020.If you are a Malay reading this, felt worked up, you probably have the sentiment of this EMNM. You should stand in front of the mirror, get a knife to carve Trump 2020 campaign on your face. Here’s one sample below for you.

Definitely not PH and somewhat not BN.Let's start with BN flaws okay so that more votes go to PH. PLUS NOTICE HOW MANY CHINESE VOTING FOR PH.Notice how these people are actually generalising BN for 1MDB scandal when only few person in that political party is actually involved for that scandal.That is what actually tricking you - manipulation.Yes 1MDB (because of Najib Razak - BN) did quite a huge lost to Malaysia by making it fall into debt, but again what did PH SST did?No more sponsorship (no free education for everyone - especially chinese and indians make note) debts aren't decreasing quick enough (compared to GST since it would have upper hand because middle and high income has to pay for their tax and not the industry only) , no more money to be spent for people in poverty (especially chinese and indians - because why not? Malays work at their free time).Umno was forgotten by generations ago because Malays are happy with their “money". They don't know what made them thrive today.PAS only speaks in religious term. Who da hell gives a damn about that? It is boring. Again, Malays are having fun with their “money" - and of course they want more money.DAP. Pretty speechless. Promoting sex education. Oh I would like to see everyone raping their own people, very oftenly- or even better pedophiles. DAP Malaysia (at 17 December 2018).Better create a new political party instead.But i don't know, the chances seems too low..:(EDIT: Ever since I talked about DAP, they edited the contents and I regret not to link there directly. I know there are DAP members in hereTime for Pakatan Harapan to revisit efforts to advocate child safety against all forms of violence and to provide recalibrated comprehensive sex education for youths as a national agenda in a Malaysia Baru come 2019They are literally ruining their own reputation towards their own race if they saw that.

As with most questions of this sort, it depends.Both Marxism and authoritarianism are fuzzy terms, used in such a mutually exclusive and contradictory fashion that they become drained of any real objective content. Thus, to make this question a bit more manageable, I’m going to focus on just a few different interpretations of what “Marxism” and “authoritarian” might mean.First, if you’re talking about Marxism as described by Marx and his followers through the Second International (i.e., before the start of WWI), then I would argue that the answer is clearly no. Karl Marx was critical of so-called “radical democrats” who thought that a formally democratic government would by itself guarantee freedom for all. In his brilliant Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, he demonstrated how the French Second Republic, at the time one of the most “democratic” countries in the world, decayed into the dictatorship of Louis Bonaparte. The Second Republic had been brought into being by an alliance between French capitalists and the French working class. But with the arrival of democracy, the French working class became more vocal in its demands, leading the French bourgeoisie to run into the safe embrace of Bonaparte’s authoritarianism. (That was a very cursory summary of Marx’s argument. The full version of Marx’s text, available for free online, is a much more nuanced and informative read.)This experience helped push Marx to flesh out the idea of a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” a phrase that does not appear in the Communist Manifesto or earlier writings. In fact, Marx only wrote in any detail about the concept near the end of his life, in his Critique of the Gotha Program. In that text, Marx was criticizing the political platform of the newly founded German Workers’ Party (DAP), a predecessor of the SPD (today the second-largest party in Germany). The German Workers Party advocated a gradual, “democratic,” transition to socialism, more or less along the lines of what’s happened in countries like Sweden or Norway.Marx attacked this program on the basis that it fundamentally misunderstood the relationship between state and society:First of all, according to II, the German Workers' party strives for "the free state".Free state — what is this?It is by no means the aim of the workers, who have got rid of the narrow mentality of humble subjects, to set the state free. In the German Empire, the "state" is almost as "free" as in Russia. Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".The German Workers' party — at least if it adopts the program — shows that its socialist ideas are not even skin-deep; in that, instead of treating existing society (and this holds good for any future one) as the basis of the existing state (or of the future state in the case of future society), it treats the state rather as an independent entity that possesses its own intellectual, ethical, and libertarian bases.DAP, in Marx’s view, made a fundamental error by assuming that one could imagine the political structure of the state independently from the society that serves as the state’s basis for existence. A society wrought by violent struggle between classes can never be more than superficially democratic. If a small minority owns the majority of the society’s wealth, they will ensure that democracy does not extend to their bank accounts, even if that means jettisoning democracy itself.And, in fact, Marx notes, there are already societies in existence that have a liberal democratic government, but they have their own forms of exploitation and oppression:Its political demands contain nothing beyond the old democratic litany familiar to all: universal suffrage, direct legislation, popular rights, a people's militia, etc. They are a mere echo of the bourgeois People's party, of the League of Peace and Freedom. They are all demands which, insofar as they are not exaggerated in fantastic presentation, have already been realized. Only the state to which they belong does not lie within the borders of the German Empire, but in Switzerland, the United States, etc. This sort of "state of the future" is a present-day state, although existing outside the "framework" of the German Empire.Remember, this is 1875, just two years before the end of Reconstruction in the United States crushed any semblance of racial democracy in the South and just a decade before Chicago police would gun down peaceful protesters in the street and execute seven labor activists after a police agent set off a bomb at a labor rally. Formal democracy does not a free society make.And, in fact, Marx’s biggest problem with the Gotha programme was that it was tainted by a “servile belief in the state” combined with a naive faith in the possibility for democratic transformation of that state. Marx even opposed public education on the grounds that the state should not be trusted with educating future generations!"Elementary education by the state" is altogether objectionable. Defining by a general law the expenditures on the elementary schools, the qualifications of the teaching staff, the branches of instruction, etc., and, as is done in the United States, supervising the fulfillment of these legal specifications by state inspectors, is a very different thing from appointing the state as the educator of the people! Government and church should rather be equally excluded from any influence on the school. Particularly, indeed, in the Prusso-German Empire (and one should not take refuge in the rotten subterfuge that one is speaking of a "state of the future"; we have seen how matters stand in this respect) the state has need, on the contrary, of a very stern education by the people.But the whole program, for all its democratic clang, is tainted through and through by the Lassallean sect's servile belief in the state, or, what is no better, by a democratic belief in miracles; or rather it is a compromise between these two kinds of belief in miracles, both equally remote from socialism.Thus, any argument that Marx was a “statist” can seemingly be put to rest. Marx viewed the state as an instrument of social control, as the threat of force that maintained the capitalist class hierarchy. Under true communism, Marx argued, the state would just wither away.Of course, getting from the capitalist, state-controlled here-and-now to the stateless communist society is (obviously) easier said than done. It’s Marx’s solution to this problem that will give rise to accusations of authoritarianism:The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.Unfortunately, Marx does not elaborate at all what he means on this point. He moves on to giving more criticisms of the poor, befuddled DAP program. But we have some indications. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx offers a brief account of what a successful proletarian revolution would entail:We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.Marx allows that, in the beginning, the revolution will entail “despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production.” So if you’re a classical liberal, for whom protection of property is one of your top concerns, then you’re not going to like Marx. But, Marx notes, his qualm is not with property in general, but with property in its capitalist form:You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.In other words, property does not exist in a meaningful sense for the vast majority of society. This is true even in advanced capitalist societies of today; in fact, it is precisely what defines capitalism. Sure, you might own a house and a car (if you’re lucky), but that’s not what Marx means by property. He means ownership of capital — wealth that begets more wealth, such as factories, apartment buildings, huge tracts of land, et cetera. At best, most people might have a few stocks and bonds in their retirement accounts, but 90% of people aren’t factory owners or even small business owners.Given this, what do these “despotic inroads” actually entail?These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.Many of these measures have been implemented in some form or another in most developed countries today. Do the remaining ones, which mostly entail the centralization of economic production in the hands of the state, constitute authoritarianism? Well, it depends what you mean by authoritarianism. Is it authoritarianism when economic production is centralized in the hands of a few multinational corporations, who can fire employees for their political beliefs, close down factories and stores if workers try to organize, and pay their workers more or less whatever they choose?Or, to the contrary, would it be less authoritarian if industry were controlled by democratically appointed managers, charged with maximizing social welfare as opposed to maximizing short-term profits? I’ll leave that for you to decide.In any case, Marx sees this “dictatorship of the proletariat” as a but a temporary situation. As the economic base of society is transformed, the need for a powerful state will diminish.When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.And with that, the state will have “withered away.”You can dispute the feasibility of these ideas or argue that they will translate to authoritarianism in practice, but in his ideas, Marx is quite clear.This answer is already too long, otherwise I would address the ideas of Lenin, who elaborated on Marx’s concept of “dictatorship of the proletariat” more than any other Marxist thinker. To keep it brief, I will merely rest my case by suggesting that Lenin’s putative “authoritarian” tendencies have been exaggerated as well, though it is true that he was much more comfortable with authoritarian measures than Marx.