So what "category" do I fall under?

[Habash]

Not because I want to go around calling myself a cool name or anything silly like that, but simply because I want to learn more, and study from those who share my views, specifically. There is a ton of info out there, and I would never be able to take all of it in. Therefore, I'd like to know what "group" I share most in common with..

At initial thought, I seem to be:

-opposed to the existence of a centralized/coercive government
-opposed to a liassez-faire capitalist system
-in favor of free education/healthcare/social services
-opposed to everyone earning the same wages
-in favor of some private business, but on a heavily regulated smaller scale
-in favor of a communal society where everyone contributes to their ability

Am I completely contradicting myself here, or do some schools of leftist thought exist that share my views?

A point in the right direction will be much appreciated.

[red cat]

What will be the future of these private businesses?

[Habash]

What will be the future of these private businesses?

Good question. I'm not sure. I haven't thought about it that far. You can guess I'm not an economist.

I guess I would have to imagine if the market is regulated properly, they will not grow to become exploitative and thus begin a cycle of oppressive capitalism all over again. But then again, I have no clue.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

You are not a communist that's for sure.

[Agnapostate]

I would tentatively say market socialism, although some of those comments are more indicative of support of social democracy, which is not socialist in nature.

[Habash]

I would tentatively say market socialism, although some of those comments are more indicative of support of social democracy, which is not socialist in nature.

As in countries like Finland and Norway? That doesn't sound too bad, but I still don't believe there is a need for a centralized government.

It seems like I have a lot of researching to do. I know that I'm anti-imperialist, and favor a communal society free of government, but beyond that, I'm pretty clueless.

Where should I start reading?

[Agnapostate]

As in countries like Finland and Norway? That doesn't sound too bad, but I still don't believe there is a need for a centralized government.

Then perhaps it would be a matter of libertarianism, and minarchist and anarchist ideologies. Tolerance for social democracy might indicate a particularly rightist form of market socialism, so you'd perhaps have a greater interest in individualist anarchists like Thoreau and Tucker than the mutualist Proudhon, though they're all market socialists.


It seems like I have a lot of researching to do. I know that I'm anti-imperialist, and favor a communal society free of government, but beyond that, I'm pretty clueless.

Where should I start reading?

Read Capital, or perhaps a more contemporary text, like David Schweickart's Against Capitalism. With all the disunity and petty doctrinal infighting that exists among socialist ideologies and sects about the organizational structure of socialist affairs, there also exists a common opposition to capitalism alongside it, and a general agreement with Marx's analysis of it. If there's a consistent opposition to government there, it would perhaps be better to investigate the anti-market elements of social anarchism, as even non-capitalist markets are plagued by deficiencies.

[ArrowLance]

As in countries like Finland and Norway? That doesn't sound too bad, but I still don't believe there is a need for a centralized government.

It seems like I have a lot of researching to do. I know that I'm anti-imperialist, and favor a communal society free of government, but beyond that, I'm pretty clueless.

Where should I start reading?

How do you regulate the capitalists without the government, since you seem to think that they should be allowed to survive in some regulated way that removes exploitation. The problem is, private business is inherently exploitative. The owners make all of their money from the surplus value created through labour. There would not be any real reason to venture into a private business without this incentive. It sounds you would fit almost perfectly with the American Bi-partisan political spectrum.

From what I can tell, you are in no way a Revolutionary Leftist as long as you support private ownership.

[Habash]

Thanks for the response. I'll begin with that, and go from there.

[Agnapostate]

From what I can tell, you are in no way a Revolutionary Leftist as long as you support private ownership.

It depends on the nature of "private ownership." Some models of market socialism emphasize ownership by individual workers' cooperatives and competitive market exchange, which might fall under that criticism.

[Habash]

How do you regulate the capitalists without the government, since you seem to think that they should be allowed to survive in some regulated way that removes exploitation. The problem is, private business is inherently exploitative. The owners make all of their money from the surplus value created through labour. There would not be any real reason to venture into a private business without this incentive. It sounds you would fit almost perfectly with the American Bi-partisan political spectrum.

From what I can tell, you are in no way a Revolutionary Leftist as long as you support private ownership.

Hence why I need to read more. You make a good point, and now that I see it in that light, I understand why private business is an obstacle. Believe me, I am no where near the American political thought. I just need to understand more of the basics to learn how things work.

Btw, if you can't regulate the market without government, how do systems like Anarcho-Communism work?

[ArrowLance]

Hence why I need to read more. You make a good point, and now that I see it in that light, I understand why private business is an obstacle. Believe me, I am no where near the American political thought. I just need to understand more of the basics to learn how things work.

Btw, if you can't regulate the market without government, how do systems like Anarcho-Communism work?

Oh, don't take me wrong, after class differences have been eliminated there is no longer a need for government intervention. The workers can moderate themselves. The issue was simply with how to regulate private ownership if it is allowed at all. If it isn't then there is less of a need for any central power system to restrict it.

As for a place to start, as a marxist-leninist, I would suggest The Communist Manifesto (real basics if you haven't already read it), Marx's 'Capital', Lenin's 'The State and Revolution', and a personal favorite of mine Lenin's 'The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.'

[red cat]

Oh, don't take me wrong, after class differences have been eliminated there is no longer a need for government intervention. The workers can moderate themselves. The issue was simply with how to regulate private ownership if it is allowed at all. If it isn't then there is less of a need for any central power system to restrict it.

As for a place to start, as a marxist-leninist, I would suggest The Communist Manifesto (real basics if you haven't already read it), Marx's 'Capital', Lenin's 'The State and Revolution', and a personal favorite of mine Lenin's 'The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.'

Won't the last three be a little tough for beginners?

Besides the "Communist Manifesto", I suggest "Principles of Communism", "Wage Labor and Capital"by Marx, "On the Question of Dialectics", "Summary of Dialectics",by Lenin,"On Contradiction" and "Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society"by Mao Dze Dong.

[Agnapostate]

Btw, if you can't regulate the market without government, how do systems like Anarcho-Communism work?

Anarchist communism doesn't entail market exchange; it entails elimination of markets and replacement with decentralized economic planning conducted through horizontal federations of participatory collectives and communes.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I would think you should re-consider your views on private business.

Have you considered that 'small businesses' (I am referring to businesses which employ 50-200 employees or thereabouts, as opposed to one man band type shops which of course could operate in a socialist system) could be more efficiently and democratically run if under the control of its employees - i.e. in the form of a workers' council, rather than a single authoritarian 'boss'?

[Habash]

I would think you should re-consider your views on private business.

Have you considered that 'small businesses' (I am referring to businesses which employ 50-200 employees or thereabouts, as opposed to one man band type shops which of course could operate in a socialist system) could be more efficiently and democratically run if under the control of its employees - i.e. in the form of a workers' council, rather than a single authoritarian 'boss'?

You know, I think this is where the misunderstanding might have been. When I said "private business on a smaller scale" I was really just referring to owner-operated, or family owned businesses, I did not have 5-200 employee businesses in mind. It makes sense now.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think you will find anyone saying that this sort of small shopowner cannot operate. When we talk about business, we are talking about big businesses which, through their size, have the ability to make gross profits by exploiting masses of workers.

It is unlikely that a small family shop, or one that employs a handful of people, will be interested in suppressing its workers to the same extent, as they can simply get up and leave. If all large businesses, as we have seen throughout history, decide to exploit the workers, there is little that workers can do to 'reform' the situation, so to speak. This type of analysis is what leads us to become socialists who support revolution.

[the last donut of the night]

Habash, I think that with our help, you'll be fine.

It's good that you're curious, and breaking the taboo on 'socialism' that the right wing in this country has set up.

Basically, you should believe that capitalism is an inherently wrong system because it oppresses those that feed it -- the workers. If you believe the workers should control everything they make democratically, then this is the place for you.

I recommend reading "The Case for Socialism" by Alan Mass, which I haven't yet read, but have heard good things about.

This is a good link, with the same name, on Socialist Worker, that explains anti-capitalist positions easily to a beginner: http://socialistworker.org/2008/09/03/case-for-socialism

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There's always such a great buzz on finding a new supporter of our ideas.:D

[ReggaeCat]

I think marx said that capitalism is doomed to fail someday cause it survives by the hands of his enemies so once the proletariat awakens capitalism is gone...(not exactly this but kind of...)..anyways...:rolleyes:

[ReggaeCat]

i would say read the "another view of stalin" just to prevent future misunderstanding of socialist history...:)

[pelican]

Is it possible to have:

-opposed to the existence of a centralized/coercive government
and achieve:
-in favor of free education/healthcare/social services

Not a universally free system anyway?

[Luisrah]

i would say read the "another view of stalin" just to prevent future misunderstanding of socialist history...:)

This is quite important.

In my opinion, you should only decide what you are after you've seen all the points of view.

[Tatarin]

-opposed to the existence of a centralized/coercive government

This depends on your own view of how a government is supposed to work. If you do not consider the current government to get in your way, then there is nothing much to oppose. However, if you live in a completely democratic society in where the majority have the power and final decision, then you must get used to the way that your wishes may not always be the first priority.

Keep in mind that there will always be some form of organization, and if you view that as government or not is up to you. Even an anarchist, I believe, couldn't dismiss the fact that some planning must exist on a bigger level if society is to function.


-in favor of free education/healthcare/social services

I think that if you ask anyone, they would tell you that this is their wish as well. On the right wing side, they will of course counter this by pointing out the costs of such things.

On the left wing side - that is, if you consider social democracy as a part of the left - it differs from person to person whether these services should be completely free. The more "hardcore" social democrats believe that these services would go on the taxes.

These services would of course be available to all, if not free then to a very low cost, in a socialist society.


-opposed to everyone earning the same wages

Wages would disappear completely in the form they are in today. In socialism, there could be a "reward" system for those who work more than others, however not on the same scale of today where one can make billions by doing a fraction of someone who does the heavy work.

In short, the goal of socialism is to create the human society of cooperation.


-in favor of some private business, but on a heavily regulated smaller scale

I can not say that I support you here. Heavy taxes on business is (or rather, "should be") the goal of social democracy, but what prevents a company from simply establishing a new factory in the neighbouring country where the cost of running and employing is only 1/10th of that of the original country?

Also, in the capitalist world, do not make the mistake of thinking that big business is something outside the various governments. It is very much an acting part of them. Their interest is to end all taxation of the company, and to employ for free if they can. This isn't necessary the goal of the small family shop-company, but as the business grow and becomes a chain, as the profits rises, so does the money and in turn their spending on propaganda, commercials ("the private product is better than the state owned product") and sooner or later, involves itself in politics.

It does not matter how many laws and taxes a company have on itself, it will still fight for its profits. And one company often means many companies, thus there will always be an active battle against anything progressive as long as the system that permits companies to exist is utterly flattened to the ground.