Making up my mind on... everything.

[Robocommie]

So, I've been around here a while, I've posted quite a bit, had a few interesting discussions and met some really interesting people.

However, in a way I feel more confused about Socialism than ever before. There are so many tendencies, so much sectarian arguments. Theorists whom I've never even heard of before are praised or condemned, and there's a whole lot of stuff being thrown around about anarchism and Stalinism, and state capitalism this and anarcho-syndicalism that. I understand these concepts, but frankly... well I really don't know where I fit in to all of this.

I come to the revolutionary left having formery been a hardcore Social Democrat, who got fed up with the idea of trying to institute social change through elections. I watch the corrupt system in Washington DC fumble around with lies and bullshit, any politicians who went into the game with the honest intention of making things better are forced to sell themselves for campaign contributions. This country cannot even institute a very limited healthcare reform effectively. Capitalism shakes itself to pieces in front of Washington's eyes, and rather than try and fix it, they just shovel out money with the hopes that the people fucking things up will just change their act. In short, the system will not reform itself, and it seems very likely it must be smashed and rebuilt anew.

I'm afraid that I just don't know where my principles fit in, amongst the broader revolutionary movement. I've seen a lot of arguments and debates, sometimes heated, as to HOW a revolution should be carried out, and by WHOM, and for WHAT end, and whether or not the state is an inherently corrupt institution and whether or not a money economy can be a just one.

I know what I value, and I know what I believe. I've got my knowledge of history and economics to guide me... but other than that. how the fuck am I supposed to figure out where I stand on all this? Where do I even begin?

[redwinter]

Read the literature of different groups, talk to people, discuss and debate about it with everyone you know. And come to your own conclusions.

Might I suggest this as one document to check out:
COMMUNISM: THE BEGINNING OF A NEW STAGE
A Manifesto from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (http://www.revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html)
http://www.revcom.us/Manifesto/Manifesto.html

[Rjevan]

What redwinter said, read some basic works of every tendency which seems interesting for you, take a look at our Revolutionary Left Dictionary (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-left-dictionary-t22628/index.html) if you didn't do that already, ask questions here (that's what this forum is for ;)) and last but not least, don't rush things, take your time to inform yourself rather than joining one tendency just for being able to label yourself and have that cool "Tendency: XYZ" at the right top of your posts.

[cenv]

So, I've been around here a while, I've posted quite a bit, had a few interesting discussions and met some really interesting people.

However, in a way I feel more confused about Socialism than ever before. There are so many tendencies, so much sectarian arguments. Theorists whom I've never even heard of before are praised or condemned, and there's a whole lot of stuff being thrown around about anarchism and Stalinism, and state capitalism this and anarcho-syndicalism that. I understand these concepts, but frankly... well I really don't know where I fit in to all of this.

I come to the revolutionary left having formery been a hardcore Social Democrat, who got fed up with the idea of trying to institute social change through elections. I watch the corrupt system in Washington DC fumble around with lies and bullshit, any politicians who went into the game with the honest intention of making things better are forced to sell themselves for campaign contributions. This country cannot even institute a very limited healthcare reform effectively. Capitalism shakes itself to pieces in front of Washington's eyes, and rather than try and fix it, they just shovel out money with the hopes that the people fucking things up will just change their act. In short, the system will not reform itself, and it seems very likely it must be smashed and rebuilt anew.

I'm afraid that I just don't know where my principles fit in, amongst the broader revolutionary movement. I've seen a lot of arguments and debates, sometimes heated, as to HOW a revolution should be carried out, and by WHOM, and for WHAT end, and whether or not the state is an inherently corrupt institution and whether or not a money economy can be a just one.

I know what I value, and I know what I believe. I've got my knowledge of history and economics to guide me... but other than that. how the fuck am I supposed to figure out where I stand on all this? Where do I even begin?
I'd recommend trying to figure out how all these different schools of thought relate to your own life. If we don't approach politics from the perspective of subjective experience, and if we don't think of things in terms of our everyday lives, "the left" becomes an overwhelming melange of political abstractions that appear more-or-less equal and completely meaningless.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So, I've been around here a while, I've posted quite a bit, had a few interesting discussions and met some really interesting people.

However, in a way I feel more confused about Socialism than ever before. There are so many tendencies, so much sectarian arguments. Theorists whom I've never even heard of before are praised or condemned, and there's a whole lot of stuff being thrown around about anarchism and Stalinism, and state capitalism this and anarcho-syndicalism that. I understand these concepts, but frankly... well I really don't know where I fit in to all of this.

I come to the revolutionary left having formery been a hardcore Social Democrat, who got fed up with the idea of trying to institute social change through elections. I watch the corrupt system in Washington DC fumble around with lies and bullshit, any politicians who went into the game with the honest intention of making things better are forced to sell themselves for campaign contributions. This country cannot even institute a very limited healthcare reform effectively. Capitalism shakes itself to pieces in front of Washington's eyes, and rather than try and fix it, they just shovel out money with the hopes that the people fucking things up will just change their act. In short, the system will not reform itself, and it seems very likely it must be smashed and rebuilt anew.

I'm afraid that I just don't know where my principles fit in, amongst the broader revolutionary movement. I've seen a lot of arguments and debates, sometimes heated, as to HOW a revolution should be carried out, and by WHOM, and for WHAT end, and whether or not the state is an inherently corrupt institution and whether or not a money economy can be a just one.

I know what I value, and I know what I believe. I've got my knowledge of history and economics to guide me... but other than that. how the fuck am I supposed to figure out where I stand on all this? Where do I even begin?

One thing about all the arguments between tendencies. Right now we are kind of like a bunch of people trying to build a boat to get across a large fast moving river. A lot of people think their plans are the best and people argue about which way the wind might go or where the currents will be in our favor... but right now it's mostly speculation. The boat (mass self-conscious working class movements) have not been built, so it's hard to say with 100% accuracy how things will work out or what the best next step is.

In other words, there always tends to be more petty divisions when there is no way to test our ideas against reality. When there have been larger movements, it becomes more clear what is working and what is not. So, returning to my stupid metaphor, the people who made their boats out of stone or clods of grass, sink and have to reevaluate and figure out which other boat plans might work better and join with that crew.

This happened in the 60s as groups radicalized and somewhat of a left-wing consensus formed around many things... a rejection of relying on the Democratic Party for example.

So, in your case, while I think reading and figuring out where you stand on things is important, it might also be useful to become more active in your union or politics in your area. Check out what the local groups in your area are doing, read about the groups and if any sound reasonable and attractive to you, go to a meeting or email someone in the group to find out more about them. Go at your own pace and don't be afraid to tell them that this is not what you are looking for if you do disagree with their politics or activities. Don't start paying dues right away or anything, just be open that you want to see how your politics fit and what the best way for you to be active would be.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Rarely are the politics of an individual stagnant. I've been on this forum long enough to see even regular users modify their views in remarkable ways when confronted with new information and analysis that tears down (usually bit by bit) the groundwork of presumptions that exist. So long as you're able to approach subjects with this type of understanding, it really doesn't matter if you don't have a definitive grasp on every nook and cranny. Nobody else does, either. I think the best policy is to allow room for compromise with others who share your values so that you can see with four eyes instead of two. Hold true to what you firmly believe, but everyone has areas where doubt throws a longer shadow, and perhaps in those instances it's best to be open about your doubts and see where others will lead you.

As others have said, read, read, read. Self-education is the strongest tool of any revolutionairy.

[Robocommie]

Hm, sage advice, all of you guys. Thank you, it's actually quite fortifying. And surprisingly the Revleft dictionary helped quite a bit, for such a relatively short lexicon I guess it helped to put everything up there with relatively easy contrasts. And I'll be sure to continue reading and peek my eyes out into the world to see what actually jives with reality. :)

[New Tet]

So, I've been around here a while, I've posted quite a bit, had a few interesting discussions and met some really interesting people.

However, in a way I feel more confused about Socialism than ever before. There are so many tendencies, so much sectarian arguments. Theorists whom I've never even heard of before are praised or condemned, and there's a whole lot of stuff being thrown around about anarchism and Stalinism, and state capitalism this and anarcho-syndicalism that. I understand these concepts, but frankly... well I really don't know where I fit in to all of this.

I come to the revolutionary left having formery been a hardcore Social Democrat, who got fed up with the idea of trying to institute social change through elections. I watch the corrupt system in Washington DC fumble around with lies and bullshit, any politicians who went into the game with the honest intention of making things better are forced to sell themselves for campaign contributions. This country cannot even institute a very limited healthcare reform effectively. Capitalism shakes itself to pieces in front of Washington's eyes, and rather than try and fix it, they just shovel out money with the hopes that the people fucking things up will just change their act. In short, the system will not reform itself, and it seems very likely it must be smashed and rebuilt anew.

I'm afraid that I just don't know where my principles fit in, amongst the broader revolutionary movement. I've seen a lot of arguments and debates, sometimes heated, as to HOW a revolution should be carried out, and by WHOM, and for WHAT end, and whether or not the state is an inherently corrupt institution and whether or not a money economy can be a just one.

I know what I value, and I know what I believe. I've got my knowledge of history and economics to guide me... but other than that. how the fuck am I supposed to figure out where I stand on all this? Where do I even begin?

I haven't read the other replies so if this is a repetition of what someone else here said, sorry.

It's not hard to feel like a fish out of water when they've just emptied the pond out from under you. Or is that a rug? Whatever...

Maybe you hit upon the solution to your question in the very question you pose:


However, in a way I feel more confused about Socialism than ever before. There are so many tendencies, so much sectarian arguments. Theorists whom I've never even heard of before are praised or condemned, and there's a whole lot of stuff being thrown around about anarchism and Stalinism, and state capitalism this and anarcho-syndicalism that. I understand these concepts, but frankly... well I really don't know where I fit in to all of this.

If you're truly serious about surviving the next half-century with some semblance of dignity and security as an individual and as a community, we'd better hunker down and do some serious studying.
Shit, I'd better go back re-read my Lenin and De Leon, there's still something new to learn and re-learn in those books. They being on the internet is only frosting on the cake for me, mind you!
(http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm)

[mikelepore]

Trying to label yourself can add to the confusion. It's better to write an outline of the features that a new social system should have, and the features that a workable strategy for transition should have. In time such an outline will fill out because, as you discover your own beliefs, each item will become the header of a long explanation.

When reviewing given theories, I suggest not being too compartmental by saying one "ism" is all true and another "ism" is all false. Instead, it's better to say "I believe this is a true sentence, that is a false sentence."

Learn from the history of physical science. As they learned about the atom, it wasn't important for people to form lines behind the Rutherford movement, the Bohr movement, etc. What was important was to compile all the ideas that seem to check out as being reasonable, and becoming conscious of the reasons why one idea seems to be a useful principle while another idea seems to be incorrect.

[Robocommie]

Trying to label yourself can add to the confusion. It's better to write an outline of the features that a new social system should have, and the features that a workable strategy for transition should have. In time such an outline will fill out because, as you discover your own beliefs, each item will become the header of a long explanation.

When reviewing given theories, I suggest not being too compartmental by saying one "ism" is all true and another "ism" is all false. Instead, it's better to say "I believe this is a true sentence, that is a false sentence."

Learn from the history of physical science. As they learned about the atom, it wasn't important for people to form lines behind the Rutherford movement, the Bohr movement, etc. What was important was to compile all the ideas that seem to check out as being reasonable, and becoming conscious of the reasons why one idea seems to be a useful principle while another idea seems to be incorrect.

Yeah I think you're right, one thing I'm finding is that no one tendency really encapsulates my feelings on things perfectly. There are aspects of each broader philosophy that I feel are correct, but each of these tendencies also have things that I think are wrong.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

As somebody above said, don't focus on trying to align yourself with a specific tendency. Be happy that you are one of the enlightened souls who hath chosen the path of revolutionary Socialism. Beyond that, you need not be so flexible with your beliefs for the cause of making a few sectarian friends. That is my belief, anyway, and it is what I stick to, and until a movement or group comes up, in my country at least, that is agreeable to my principles, i will keep my cards close to my chest.

[Drace]

Learn the oppressions of capitalism first before going on to pick a school of thought that seeks to fix it.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Just keep hanging out around here, and/or reading leftist material/getting involved locally

Its like with any new "thing" you discover. Music, films, art, whatever. When you first start learning about it, or practising it, everything seems so overwhealming, theres just so much infomation to take in!

But if you just keep coming back to the thing eventually you it just clicks and becomes second nature to realize that anarchists are pot smoking hippies, and other useful pieces of information you can pick up around this site.

[IllicitPopsicle]

Just keep hanging out around here, and/or reading leftist material/getting involved locally

Its like with any new "thing" you discover. Music, films, art, whatever. When you first start learning about it, or practising it, everything seems so overwhealming, theres just so much infomation to take in!

But if you just keep coming back to the thing eventually you it just clicks and becomes second nature to realize that anarchists are pot smoking hippies, and other useful pieces of information you can pick up around this site.

False.

[btpound]

My advice robocommie, allow yourself to come into contact with the all sorts of ideologies. Not just communism and anarchism. Read about adolf hitler, napoleon bonaparte, the bible. Allow them to influence you. When Lenin says something, or Marx says something, don't just take it for granted, ask yourself, "Do I agree with this." The answers are within you, or they are no where at all. By exposing yourself to these ideas you develop quantatively and qualitatively. Of course Lenin and Marx are the foundation of our theory. If you would like some recomendations, here is what I would suggest:

Marxism
Priniciples of Communist by F. Engles
The Communist Manifest by K. Marx
Wage Labor and Capital by K.Marx
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by F. Engles

Leninism
The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin
What is to be done? by V.I. Lenin
Imperialism by V.I. Lenin

These are some basic texts. What really helped me find my identity as a Marxist was reading about history. Read about Mao in China, read about Stalin in Russia, read about Hoxa, Tito, Trotsky. Judge them objectively, and decide whats wight for you. Marx said that communism is not a rigid philosophy the world will have to comform to, be call communism the real movement, because it is the natural expression of the working class.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

cenv and Gravedigger give the best advice IMO. Get involved with activity in your area that helps do something actually useful, and judge ideologies on the basis of how their followers actually behave in the real world as well as on all the lovely rhetoric they come out with. I could recommend you should read something like What Is Communist Anarchism? by Alexander Berkman, and it certainly wouldn't hurt, but ultimately I think you should make your decision about who to side with on the basis of whether their activity actually achieves anything or not.

(God, if it turns out you live in a town where all the anarchists are dickheads I'm gonna really reget saying this. ;))

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The biggest choice you have to make is: Do I believe in (1) socialism from below, or (2) from above?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm

The former is based on the belief that working people have the capacity to emancipate themselves without having to be led by 'great teachers/leaders'.

The latter is based on the view that working people do not the capacity to free themselves without having to be led by 'great teachers/leaders', this is because workers cannot possibly understand socialism for themelves -- and anyway, they have been bought off by imperialist super-profuts, or have had their reasoning clouded by 'commonsense', 'formal thinking' or 'commodity fetishism'.

If you decide for the former then you can ignore Marxism-Leininism, Maoism, Stalinism, Hoxhaism, social democracy, conspiratorial communism, putschism, and some forms of anarchism.

If you decide for the latter, then you can ignore classical Leninism, Trotskyism (the two are the same anyway), anarcho-syndicalism and most forms of anarchism.

After that you just have to decide which of the tendencise in (1) or (2) most closely conforms to those ideals.

I was in the same position as you about 28 years ago; so I took my time, but finally decided in favour of (1) and then the IST (http://www.istendency.net/).

Many of their ideas can be found here:

http://www.marxists.de/admin/contents.htm

[Pyotr Tchaikovsky]

If you decide for the latter, then you can ignore classical Leninism, Trotskyism (the two are the same anyway), anarcho-syndicalism and most forms of anarchism.



Lenin, Trotsky, Bakunin, Prince K and most anarchist leaders were members of the privileged class, weren't they? They 'led' the revolution and workers followed. So it's a clear case of socialism from above, contrary to what you believe.

[mikelepore]

The former is based on the belief that working people have the capacity to emancipate themselves without having to be led by 'great teachers/leaders'.

The latter is based on the view that working people do not the capacity to free themselves without having to be led by 'great teachers/leaders', this is because workers cannot possibly understand socialism for themelves ......................

I object to associating the use of teachers with not having the capacity to free ourselves.

Teachers are always needed. People wouldn't know what is healthy nutrition or exercise, or how to dance the fandango, or how to cook a souffle, or how to jumpstart a dead car battery, or practically anything else, without having teachers. The movement to emancipate working people certainly needs teachers.

In fact, the working class movement needs teachers more than many other subjects of learning, because the present weaknesses in working class activity are the results of misconceptions. We require volunteers who are prepared to correct other people's misconceptions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pyotr:


Lenin, Trotsky, Bakunin, Prince K and most anarchist leaders were members of the privileged class, weren't they? They 'led' the revolution and workers followed. So it's a clear case of socialism from above, contrary to what you believe.

Well, I won't comment on Bakunin or Kropotkin, but Lenin and Trotsky promoted a party (in 1917) that put the self-organisation of workers first.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mike:


I object to associating the use of teachers with not having the capacity to free ourselves.

Teachers are always needed. People wouldn't know what is healthy nutrition or exercise, or how to dance the fandango, or how to cook a souffle, or how to jumpstart a dead car battery, or practically anything else, without having teachers. The movement to emancipate working people certainly needs teachers.

In fact, the working class movement needs teachers more than many other subjects of learning, because the present weaknesses in working class activity are the results of misconceptions. We require volunteers who are prepared to correct other people's misconceptions.


Read what I said more carefully, Mike; I used the phrase "great teacher", not "teacher". I am of course referring to the way Mao and Stalin were described. And, of course, teachers are workers. The point is that workers teach themselves through struggle.

So, your post, much of which I agree with, was aimed at the wrong target.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Lenin, Trotsky, Bakunin, Prince K and most anarchist leaders were members of the privileged class, weren't they? They 'led' the revolution and workers followed. So it's a clear case of socialism from above, contrary to what you believe.I think you mean leadership from "without the class" not "socialism from above" since regardless of the class origins of individuals in the leadership of the movement, Lenin could not have called for "all power to the soviets" if there had been no worker councils or the working class revolution.

Socialism from above is like "trickle-down socialism"... you try to change things at the top of society in order to change the system on behalf of the working class. Revolution from below is when workers take over the factories and begin to reorganize society themselves.

Second, the class origins of revolutionaries doesn't matter as much as their politics and if they are for working class self-emancipation or if they were for socialism from above. If a social-democrat leader came from a working-class background but advocated winning seats in Parliament rather than worker's power and control of production, then his/her background means shit. Conversely Marx was from a petty-bourgeois background what he identified and wrote about is very important for working class revolution. Also if some working class people have ideas and work against their own class interests (scabs and reactionaries or whatever) then it is equally possible for rich people to be "class-traitors" and work in working class interests.

Besides do you really expect that revolutionary writers and theoreticians would come from the working class at a time when few workers had access to the kind of education and literacy we have now? The early revolutionary socialists and anarchists were products of their time, so it's totally understandable that the ones who had the time and literacy to study and write were from upper-class backgrounds. But they were not the only ones and often they were not the ones leading particular fights and struggles. there are countless nameless revolutionaries for every "big name" that we read about today.

People like Marx would have had nothing to study and write about if it was not for the working class movements that were happening around them. Marx would not have been able to write about class struggle if workers were not striking and organizing. In fact Marx and Engels took lessons from the Paris commune and the early labor struggles and so on. So leading in the sense of identifying what you think is the next step forward for a movement or the class as a whole is not the same as telling people to follow you.