the Question Only section

[danyboy27]

feel free to ask your Questions about leftist ideologies here.
take not that its not a place where to debate or arguing, just ask your question and someone will answer it.

[Chapter 24]

You've made a thread where people ask about "leftist ideologies" and don't expect any debate whatsoever? How does that work out?

[Revolutionary Youth]

You've made a thread where people ask about "leftist ideologies" and don't expect any debate whatsoever? How does that work out?
Simple, closed down and trashed!
By the way Spet, isn't the "questioning & answering" part belonged to the "Learning" forum?:confused:
Or you want to make this thread for the restricted ones?

[danyboy27]

Simple, closed down and trashed!
By the way Spet, isn't the "questioning & answering" part belonged to the "Learning" forum?:confused:
Or you want to make this thread for the restricted ones?


mainly for the restricted one.

Tomk mentionned he had some question and that he was willing not to argues and just ask question.

some newcomer might want to learn more about leninism or anarchism, but not necessarly want to start a whole topic about that.
we might not agreee with you guy, its not a reason not to actually understand your logic and coerence behind your ideologies.

understand where your logic is all about will actually help, and reduce the number of stupid question.

[Vahanian]

mainly for the restricted one.

Tomk mentionned he had some question and that he was willing not to argues and just ask question.

some newcomer might want to learn more about leninism or anarchism, but not necessarly want to start a whole topic about that.
we might not agreee with you guy, its not a reason not to actually understand your logic and coerence behind your ideologies.

understand where your logic is all about will actually help, and reduce the number of stupid question.

Well if your restricted before you learn anything you problly made up your mind allready.:)

[danyboy27]

Well if your restricted before you learn anything you problly made up your mind allready.:)


wich dosnt mean people from the Oi dont want to understand you.

you can understand an ideology for just a better understanding toward people fallowing it.

[Lynx]

If you can get the OI mods to be stricter about posts to threads marked or devoted for Learning then this might be worth a try.

[Jazzratt]

Look, I can see what you're trying to achieve with this thread and it's great that you've enthusiasm for OI as a project - so thank you.

However (I'm sure you saw that coming)... this thread is unlikely to work. For a start asking the same thing of three different leftists may well return three different answers; some of which are mutually exclusive so right from the off there will likely be intra-leftist squabbling. Beyond that, of course, those who disagree with leftist ideology often see flaws in the logic of the answers, again opening it up for debate or, worse, abuse of the thread through passive-aggressive loaded questions ("When did you stop beating your wife?", "Why do all leftists support Stalin's purges?") or the like.

However, to be fair yo you I will let this thread remain open as an experiment, if it works as you envisage withouit demanding too much maintenance I will sticky it.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Well if your restricted before you learn anything you problly made up your mind allready.:)
Indeed. Very few people who sign up as OIers actually turn. Says a lot about your skills of reasoning and persuasion doesn't it.

[#FF0000]

Indeed. Very few people who sign up as OIers actually turn. Says a lot about your skills of reasoning and persuasion doesn't it.

A lot of lurkers who eventually joined were swayed over because of Revleft.

[danyboy27]

Indeed. Very few people who sign up as OIers actually turn. Says a lot about your skills of reasoning and persuasion doesn't it.

tssss dont mess the experiment, this is a ask question section!

i got a question for a trotskyst.
how permanent revolution would affect a communist society? i really didnt got that part.

then again, i wont argue against communism, its just a simple question. if multiple trotskyst got multiple answer, it dosnt matter, i will make my opinion trought it.

[Vahanian]

quoted from wikipedia:

The basic idea of Trotsky's theory is that in Russia the bourgeoisie would not carry out a thorough revolution which would institute political democracy and solve the land question. These measures were assumed to be essential to develop Russia economically. Therefore it was argued the future revolution must be led by the proletariat who would not only carry through the tasks of the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution but would commence a struggle to surpass the bourgeois democratic revolution. How far the proletariat would be able to travel upon that road would depend upon the further course of events and not upon the designation of the revolution as "Bourgeois Democratic". In this sense the revolution would be made permanent. Trotsky believed that a new workers' state would not be able to hold out against the pressures of a hostile capitalist world unless socialist revolutions quickly took hold in other countries as well. This theory was advanced in opposition to the position held by the Stalinist faction within the Bolshevik Party that "socialism in one country" could be built in the Soviet Union.

I hope that helps.(a trotskyist could awnser better)

[danyboy27]

quoted from wikipedia:

The basic idea of Trotsky's theory is that in Russia the bourgeoisie would not carry out a thorough revolution which would institute political democracy and solve the land question. These measures were assumed to be essential to develop Russia economically. Therefore it was argued the future revolution must be led by the proletariat who would not only carry through the tasks of the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution but would commence a struggle to surpass the bourgeois democratic revolution. How far the proletariat would be able to travel upon that road would depend upon the further course of events and not upon the designation of the revolution as "Bourgeois Democratic". In this sense the revolution would be made permanent. Trotsky believed that a new workers' state would not be able to hold out against the pressures of a hostile capitalist world unless socialist revolutions quickly took hold in other countries as well. This theory was advanced in opposition to the position held by the Stalinist faction within the Bolshevik Party that "socialism in one country" could be built in the Soviet Union.

I hope that helps.(a trotskyist could awnser better)
tanks for the info, i am still waiting for the help of a trotskyst on that.
so in other more simple word, permanent revolution is more like a worldwide permanent struggle to takeover the whole capitalist system, and stalinism is more about developing communism inside the soviet union.

then again, i am just making things uber simple, i know it certainly more complicated, but i am trying to get the main idea.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

What's the difference between left communism, council communism, and anarcho-syndicalism, and mutualism? Whenever people start going way left it gets kind of murky.

Do most transhumanists believe the human body should be made more perfect on it's own, as in, are the tools already there and just need to be improved upon? Or is it seen as a goal to say, replace the human arm with Luke Skywalkers? (no, seriously, when NoXion started talking about how he wanted his brain replaced with something that could absorb and hold data more efficiently, like a microchip, it got me wondering). I had thought transhumanists were about creating humans impervious to disease, and stuff like that.

The definition of technocracy is a government in which technicians are in charge...and yeah that's about all I understand. I would add, that most seem to be anarchists so that rules out the whole govt thing. But anyway, is technocracy based around the abolition of work? Is it popular, as in are the few internet junkies on here the only ones (which must be impossible)? Are there networkings of technocrats in the US (and, out of curiosity, in Europe?)?

Why do people put Lichtenstein and Lenin together? Don't they completely contradict one another?

Do ye non-Americans feel there is, in actual existence, a left party which represents your views? As a side to this, is Die Linke considered a legitimate workers party?

Thank you.

[trivas7]

What prevents any leftist regime that holds absolute state power becoming another personality cult: e.g., Stalin, Mao -- Bob Avakian(?) Would you really like to live in a society where the Party line is the ideology of one person?

[RGacky3]

What prevents any leftist regime that holds absolute state power becoming another personality cult: e.g., Stalin, Mao -- Bob Avakian(?) Would you really like to live in a society where the Party line is the ideology of one person?

Direct democracy, mutual consent, representative democracy, different socialists have different ideas.

Anarchists generally would argue that mutual consent, no innate authority, and public oversite would prevent that.

Some democratic Socialists would use the same representative government system that Capitalists democracies use, some giving more power to local governments and giving more direct democracy.


What's the difference between left communism, council communism, and anarcho-syndicalism, and mutualism? Whenever people start going way left it gets kind of murky.


Left Communism, was a term invented in the USSR to describe those who were more democratically inclined, its a very braod term.

Council communism is simply a term that would put workings councils in control rather than any central authority.

Anarcho-syndicalism is more of a on going tactic of radical democratic unions organizing workers and achieving communism through direct action and worker democracy.

Mutualism is an economic theory that proports that under an Anarchist society, there would be actual free-trade, and free association between workers, and that mutual consent would recompensate people according to the value of their work. Its essencially cooperative economics based on free-association.

These are all very very basic and simplistic explinations.

[trivas7]

Direct democracy, mutual consent, representative democracy, different socialists have different ideas.

Anarchists generally would argue that mutual consent, no innate authority, and public oversite would prevent that.

Some democratic Socialists would use the same representative government system that Capitalists democracies use, some giving more power to local governments and giving more direct democracy.

I see. As was implemented in Soviet Russia, Mao's China or any other Marxist regime that has held state power. This is idealistic nonsense.

[RGacky3]

I see. As was implemented in Soviet Russia, Mao's China. This is idealistic nonsense.

ehem, they took a different route, of democratic centrism and vanguardism,

I did'nt mention it because thats not my cup of tea, I agree with you those things lead to tyrannies.

But none of those o****ries used any of the forms I mentioned.

[trivas7]

But none of those o****ries used any of the forms I mentioned.
Name one Marxist regime that has.

[danyboy27]

tanks gacky for those answer. dont forget trivias that this is a topic for questions, please dont debate, i know how this will end, and i really want to preserve this topic.

[RGacky3]

Name one Marxist regime that has.

Like Spetnaz said its Q & A thread, bring that up in your own thread. However, keep in mind my answer was based on anarchist/libertarian socialist and democratic socialist solutions, not nessesarily marxist, and definately not leninist ones.

I'll leave those to the Marxist and Leninists here.

[trivas7]

tanks gacky for those answer. dont forget trivias that this is a topic for questions, please dont debate, i know how this will end, and i really want to preserve this topic.
Excuse me, spetnaz21; and please forgive. Any moderator can kindly delete my jabber.

[Bud Struggle]

anarchist/libertarian socialist and democratic socialist solutions, not nessesarily marxist, and definately not leninist ones.



It seems to me that at least 80% of the Communist around here are Anarchists of some sort or other.

[trivas7]

Another question: would it be the general consensus among RevLefters that American libertarianism represents the ideology of the petite-bourgeois class?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

It seems to me that at least 80% of the Communist around here are Anarchists of some sort or other.

No doubt. They really are two different birds altogether, Anarchism and Marxism.

And thank you Gacky.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Name one Marxist regime that has.
There isnt, that is what so sad about it.

[Jazzratt]

Another question: would it be the general consensus among RevLefters that American libertarianism represents the ideology of the petite-bourgeois class?


Yes, pretty much. It might appeal to some members of the bourgeoisie as well (although, for the most part they are content with the world as is) but the bulk of its support is drawn from the petit-bourgeoisie.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I agree, but it does cut across class lines. Both Clint Eastwood and Bill Gates are self-described libertarians, for example.

[casper]

question:
What functions of society would be best for socialist, communist or anarchist to try to wield in order to bring about a better society? wouldn't it be the economy and smaller branches of government(community) rather then an attempt at president wouldn't a lefty be able to more directly effect things by involvement in business(like cooperatives) or even habitat for humanity and other organizations. in other words wouldn't a political "ground up" program be more effective or even necessary for, a more wide scale movement? and also wouldn't the economy have a more direct inpact on material existence, and that by using more leftist principles in a successfull business a leftist could show and encourage Some leftist principles?(by showing that they can still provide for people, and well.)

[trivas7]

I agree, but it does cut across class lines. Both Clint Eastwood and Bill Gates are self-described libertarians, for example.
Really, where have they described themselves as such, pray tell?