Why I stopped being a Communist

[Sturzo]

Hello all,

I posted here a long time ago, and as time passed, I forgot my login details, but also my viewpoints about life changed. I've turned away from Marxism for many reasons, some that are discussed a lot here, but some not so much. My main gripe is really the mentality of Communists, not so much the theoretical ramblings and all that.

I turned away principally for the reasons that I post below. Over time, I've become a strange type of moderate right-wing (don't worry, I hate Republicans), I find the most attraction in the ideals of Social and Christian Democracy. I'm secular, but find the "spirit" of many of Catholicism's social teaching inspiring. I still believe strongly in an egalitarian society that cares for all, but in a different form. I want to end up working for a NGO that helps the downtrodden, or go into politics. :)

Anyways, here are my main points that turned me away from the Communist ideal. These are general points that I took a little time to write down after reflecting on my time as a Communist, I thought it would be nice to share, just in case you wanted to reflect on it yourselves.


1) Rigidity – Communists of all stripes have demonstrated to have no flexibility in differences in opinion in social or political matters, as one can see in the constant fractioning of socialist parties in history. This inflexibility has turned into bloodshed, brutal political violence and intellectual rigidity that stifle any way of reforming the problems created in narrow-minded thinking. You either agree completely, or you’re a reactionary/revisionist/bourgeois etc. etc. This obviously is incompatible with people who champion direct worker’s ‘democracy’, where obviously people are going to have different opinions. It seems Communists have this assumption that everyone will just begin thinking like them at some point, abandoning religion and other beliefs for the revolution – parallel how Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther believed everyone would just interpret the Bible the same way he did. Orthodoxy is one of the major factors what makes Communists so unattractive, where instead of just fighting for social justice; they alienate themselves from potential opportunities by framing everything they do into a rigid theory – thus making them useless while great victories in the rights of oppressed groups are won without them.


2) Somewhat related to the post above, Communists subscribe to a theory so dogmatically and inflexibly, they are unable to garner real support, approach problems in a realistic sense, and alienate themselves further from the very people they suppose to champion. What American worker cares about what happens in North Korea and Columbia in relation to their own problems? It’s even worse when these same Communists express support for murderous totalitarian regimes and drug-dealing, child-conscripting warlords, even in the name of “anti-imperialism” as it unnecessarily destroys any attempt of credibility they can achieve. In general, the lens that Communists look at the world out through is often so outdated and warped that they grossly misunderstand the world and politics around them, even neglecting entire factors just to preserve their devotion to class struggle. The more they ignore, the less realistic their worldview becomes. These people are stuck in a Cold War mentality about the world.


3) Vague concepts– Communists seem to be naïve about complex society can be, probably since they divide things so neatly into two classes. They seek to explain away the solution to capitalism with the solution of class struggle in some new order. Any potential problem to this new society is done away with general and/or vague explanations of future technology, people learning to do things differently, or some other unsupported claim. Much of a communist’s faith relies on dogma, that the proletariat will simply rise up, destroy the old order, abandon old values overnight and magically learn to run a new society.

4) Mentality – There are two primary components to the Communist mentality that I have come to recognize as dangerous, and I despise. The first point is how militant leftists have a tendency to assume they know what people are like to their core, and what’s best for them. First, they dump all cultural, social, and political factors of a human being into the context of class struggle, subordinating the individual to the forces of the society. They make the assumption that religion means nothing but a drug for oppressed masses, once again ignoring the individual factors of faith and spirituality that people strive for and seeking to replace it with some hypothetical satisfaction in a hypothetical communist society. Why assume to know what will happen in the future?

The second is the idea that the ends justify the means. That class war means violence. And with violence being permissible, anything becomes permissible to achieve victory. As one revlefter recently justified in that FARC thread “The working class revolution won't be ideal. It will be a bloody mess with plenty of innocent victims. Just like any war.” As other tried to justify FARC’s involvement in the drug trade to showing that a bourgeois instrument of power, the CIA, did it too. This is politics of the worst. The willingness to commit violence even before the necessity to indicates a dangerous precedent. What Communists don’t seem to realize is that the outcomes of the ends are determined by the means to achieve them. If you use political terror, mass murder, and other instruments, you’ll end up with a repressive state. Communists are inherently bloodthirsty, and when emboldened to use violence to achieve their ends, and just like any human being, it becomes increasingly easier to use violence as a tool with ever increasingly application. Power corrupts.

[#FF0000]

So you stopped being a communist because of vulgar marxism. Okay.

[Nolan]

You apparently didn't even stick around enough to learn.


1) RigidityThis is simply an unfounded stereotype. We disagree on many issues, even within tendencies. Marxist-Leninists may or may view other classes in less well-developed countries as potentially revolutionary, for example. For every "rigid" belief, you have a million others. Put ten leftists in a room and you'll have 11 opinions. Leftists change opinions over time.

You speak like you've met all of us. :lol:


What American worker cares about what happens in North Korea and Columbia in relation to their own problems? Every worker around the world, despite differences in language, culture, and experiences, will have the same material interests at the end of the day. They should care. This is why we exist.


It’s even worse when these same Communists express support for murderous totalitarian regimes and drug-dealing, child-conscripting warlords, even in the name of “anti-imperialism” as it unnecessarily destroys any attempt of credibility they can achieve.The fact that you seem to take everything said about them at face-value says much more about your naivety about how the world works than our supposed "rigidity." We know the FARC is evil in the ways you described above because the Colombian government says so - the same government whose highest officials themselves often have questionable pasts, possible connections to cartels, and which employs paramilitaries which are far worse than the FARC. I suppose if the bourgeois press is not honest it's news to you.


3But we don't divide everything into two classes, so this is bullshit. Everything that follows is a strawman.


subordinating the individual to the forces of the society.We don't do this, the current system does. One only need to hold a job or be harassed by the IRS to see this. This is the type of bile that rightists use to prove capitalism is "individualist." Strawmen follow.

Furthermore, before you try browbeating communists about supporting the oh-so-evil-regimes, think twice. 235,000,000 children have died since 9/11 from hunger, mostly in African and Asian countries. This happens because of the effects of centuries of imperialism and modern neocolonial capitalism (without which the system couldn't have created such massive amounts of wealth to give to the top 1%) on those countries. But barely anyone realizes the root cause of the problem, oftentimes even blaming it on those people themselves. Yet when Cuba has a toilet-paper shortage because of the embargo, the Floridian media cries bloody murder and we all get a lesson in the evils of communism. So before you weep crocodile tears about the horrors of communist totalitarianism, ask yourself where you're coming from.

[Zanthorus]

You apparently didn't even stick around enough to learn.

This is simply an unfounded stereotype. We disagree on many issues, even within tendencies. Marxist-Leninists may or may view other classes in less well-developed countries as potentially revolutionary, for example. For every "rigid" belief, you have a million others. Put ten leftists in a room and you'll have 11 opinions. Leftists change opinions over time.

That's not what the article was talking about. It even said that leftists tend to split into groups. It was referring more to the "my opinions are objectively right and screw everyone else" attitude that a lot of leftists do actually have.

In fact a lot of that stuff applies to a lot of people here, not pointing any fingers mind. Maybe you should reflect on it a bit.

However I do think the article makes unfair generalisations.

Also extrapolating the failure of communists to attempt to prove that communism is wrong is a really weak argument. It's like saying that because Isaac Newton was a bit of a dick at times Newtonian mechanics is wrong. Or because a lot of "ultra-darwinists" like Dawkins have this crusade against religion going on evolution is wrong.

[mikelepore]

Why I stopped being a Communist ........
My main gripe is really the mentality of Communists

Maybe it's just me, but I would never think of giving up on an idea because of the unacceptable actions or attitudes of other people. Even in the most extreme case, if I had to become a new movement of one member, myself only, then I would be that.

[Agnapostate]

There's no content there really directly related to ideology so much as tactical disagreement.

[Wanted Man]

Question to the OP: have you ever met any communists?

[28350]

On 1)
You have a point, but you also generalize unfairly.
There's a dilemma, in that you have to choose between compromise and what you believe is correct.

But every little difference may become a big one if it is insisted on.

Although one of the things I hate most about the left is how splintered it is, it may at the same time be one of its greatest virtues, in that we ruthless argue, dissect, and debate.

And on 4)
I do believe on the subject of the individual there's this whole positivism vs. anti-positivism vs. marxist humanism vs. marxist existentialism vs. whatever. I don't know.

For individuals, other factors may be important, but the controlling force in their life is class. Even if they try to resist this and do what ever they want, they're caught in the totality of capitalism.

The fact of the matter is that history and class struggle isn't about individuals as much as it is about classes. You can resist all you want, you're still part of the masses.

AHHH I LOVE RHYMING.

[bcbm]

Every worker around the world, despite differences in language, culture, and experiences, will have the same material interests at the end of the day. They should care.maybe they will all have "the same material interests," but they sure as hell won't have anything to do with north korea besides dismantling it alongside every other decrepit institution of the old world.

[Ele'ill]

So you've discovered Anarchism?

[GreenCommunism]

maybe they will all have "the same material interests," but they sure as hell won't have anything to do with north korea besides dismantling it alongside every other decrepit institution of the old world.
or making it evolve without destroying the whole thing apart. first it can be like cuba, then it can be even more democratic.

[Abyss Crown]

Rigidity – Communists of all stripes have demonstrated to have no flexibility in differences in opinion in social or political matters, as one can see in the constant fractioning of socialist parties in history.

Oh, I'm sorry I'm not a spineless person who is active in politics who wants to be "fair" in what I believe in. While I listen to other people's opinions, I don't need to respect the opinion, or even the person. My ideology is very important, and the governance of a nation (or province, state, etc) is not of that within the entertainment industry. I actually know what I'm protesting for and against, and I am not doing it because it's "cool" or my other friends are doing it (not to imply I have any).

If you want to act like every other spineless person who is active in politics, whether you're actually a politician or civilian, who whines for bi-partisanship then so be it, but you could never have actually considered yourself a communist; because when full-blown socialism comes to Canada, the capitalists won't have time to get their heads out of their asses.

[Kingpin]

235,000,000 children have died since 9/11 from hunger.

This is really good information, but when I'm out in public I'm bound to be asked for a source. It sounds believable but there is a source that gives a rough death rate number right?

[Bud Struggle]

I turned away principally for the reasons that I post below. Over time, I've become a strange type of moderate right-wing (don't worry, I hate Republicans), I find the most attraction in the ideals of Social and Christian Democracy. I'm secular, but find the "spirit" of many of Catholicism's social teaching inspiring. I still believe strongly in an egalitarian society that cares for all, but in a different form.


I've been saying that for years! :)

[mykittyhasaboner]

I've been saying that for years! :)

....and you probably still sound like an idiot.




3) Vague concepts–

:lol:

[Drace]

If you think that hard on any group, be it racial, political, social, etc, you will end up finding dumb stereotypes like that.

I failed to see an argument.

[bcbm]

or making it evolve without destroying the whole thing apart. first it can be like cuba, then it can be even more democratic.

there is no "evolution" to be had out of this world, we can only create our own new forms to destroy the old.

[RGacky3]

or making it evolve without destroying the whole thing apart. first it can be like cuba, then it can be even more democratic.

Your in the same camp as bud struggle, "just trust the ruling class, it'll get better."

[ZeroNowhere]

Communists seem to be naïve about [how?] complex society can be, probably since they divide things so neatly into two classes.Das Kapital is pretty long, actually.

[Barry Lyndon]

Hello all,

I posted here a long time ago, and as time passed, I forgot my login details, but also my viewpoints about life changed. I've turned away from Marxism for many reasons, some that are discussed a lot here, but some not so much. My main gripe is really the mentality of Communists, not so much the theoretical ramblings and all that.

I turned away principally for the reasons that I post below. Over time, I've become a strange type of moderate right-wing (don't worry, I hate Republicans), I find the most attraction in the ideals of Social and Christian Democracy. I'm secular, but find the "spirit" of many of Catholicism's social teaching inspiring. I still believe strongly in an egalitarian society that cares for all, but in a different form. I want to end up working for a NGO that helps the downtrodden, or go into politics. :)

Anyways, here are my main points that turned me away from the Communist ideal. These are general points that I took a little time to write down after reflecting on my time as a Communist, I thought it would be nice to share, just in case you wanted to reflect on it yourselves.

I don't think you ever were a Communist and I think you are a liar. All of these are standard right-wing talking points and I doubt you ever read Marx at all.
As for Communists believing the 'ends justifies the means'(which, as a social-Democrat, is a dictum you should appreciate), look at the quote from Leon Trotsky in my signature.
Liar.

[Barry Lyndon]

Furthermore, before you try browbeating communists about supporting the oh-so-evil-regimes, think twice. 235,000,000 children have died since 9/11 from hunger, mostly in African and Asian countries. This happens because of the effects of centuries of imperialism and modern neocolonial capitalism (without which the system couldn't have created such massive amounts of wealth to give to the top 1%) on those countries. But barely anyone realizes the root cause of the problem, oftentimes even blaming it on those people themselves. Yet when Cuba has a toilet-paper shortage because of the embargo, the Floridian media cries bloody murder and we all get a lesson in the evils of communism. So before you weep crocodile tears about the horrors of communist totalitarianism, ask yourself where you're coming from.

Great point, comrade. I think the number is somewhat less then 235 million, I remember reading an article on the BBC about a UNICEF report that stated approximately 9 million children die every year in the Third World from preventable disease and starvation. In nine years that would come to about 81 million people. Still, thats bad enough, considering that by that criteria alone capitalism has killed almost as many people in 9 years then 'communism'(whatever that means) has been accused of killing in the entire 20th century!
And by the way, the social democratic countries that you love so much(particularly France and Sweden) funnel billions of dollars in financial and military aid into the corrupt oligarchs that rule those African nations because those oligarchs allow multinationals to loot their countries while their people starve. Pat yourself on the back, idiot.

[Red Commissar]

Oh man, I fucking hate humans. They're so argumentative and can't agree on anything.

Fuck Humanity, I'm going to become a fish.

[Nolan]

I think the number is somewhat less then 235 million

I do as well. 235 million is a figure I've heard on TV and it's common on the internet. But I don't know whose estimate it is. I doubt 235 million have died, honestly. It's probably more like what you said, 81 million children alone. 235 million represents total deaths, maybe?

[Barry Lyndon]

I do as well. 235 million is a figure I've heard on TV and it's common on the internet. But I don't know whose estimate it is. I doubt 235 million have died, honestly. It's probably more like what you said, 81 million children alone. 235 million represents total deaths, maybe

I think it represents the number of dead since 1991, when UNICEF began systematic global surveys. Coincidentally, it's also when the Soviet Union collapsed and capitalism attained unchallenged global supremacy, so you can't conceivably blame those deaths on commies.

Any way you slice it, capitalism is the most murderous system in history, by far outdoing even the most distorted propaganda estimates of the victims of 'communism'. And it does not need to murder through concentration camps or firing squads, but by merely existing.

[Nolan]

Well they haven't come back to respond to their thread, so I'd say this is ready for the trash.

[Sir Comradical]

The whole rigidity thing makes zero sense.

If a communist party is disciplined with very little internal conflict, then it’s rigid.
If a communist party is full of discussion and differences of opinion, then it’s rigid.

Right.

[graffic]

OP: I think you make generalisations because I've noticed on this site that some people are very open minded and know how to communicate properly. Some people are the opposite. Its not that their view is perhaps wrong, its the way they come across and conduct themselves, such as for example being aggressive, smarmy and patronising. But its the internet and its easy to attack from an anonymous position at someone you don't even know.

Also the far-left is like an identity. Its quite an all-consuming ideology, like being religious. Its who you are and obviously if it defines you, people are very defensive about it. You are either with them or against them. Its something very unattractive about it for sure

[Barry Lyndon]

Also the far-left is like an identity. Its quite an all-consuming ideology, like being religious. Its who you are and obviously if it defines you, people are very defensive about it. You are either with them or against them. Its something very unattractive about it for sure

Speak for yourself, liberal. At least the 'far-left' has convictions, instead of bending over backwards(or forwards) for the Democratic Party. I guess were 'religious' because we don't sell ourselves out at every opportunity.

[graffic]

Why is it that you are so small in numbers and most people think you are too ideological?

Are they in a "false state of consciousness"?? The "false state of consciousness" line is convenient and flexible, you can apply it to almost anything. Why did my girlfriend dump me? She was in false state consciousness. Why don't people agree with me? False state of consciousness.

Ideology is fascinating but centre-left parties are actually realistic about how to achieve their goals and help workers.

[Barry Lyndon]

Why is it that you are so small in numbers and most people think you are too ideological?

Are they in a "false state of consciousness"?? The "false state of consciousness" line is convenient and flexible, you can apply it to almost anything. Why did my girlfriend dump me? She was in false state consciousness. Why don't people agree with me? False state of consciousness.

Ideology is fascinating but centre-left parties are actually realistic about how to achieve their goals and help workers.

Well, actually, Marxist and radical socialist parties are not small in numbers in many parts of the world- Latin America, South Asia, and parts of Europe, to name a few. The United States is actually somewhat unique in how utterly marginal the radical left is. So by 'most people', I presume you mean Americans.

Maybe its because the ideology of capitalism so totally permeates American society that it is seen as non-ideological, and so anyone who challenges it is seen as " too ideological".

Yes, and how has being 'center-left' been doing in bringing gains for workers in the United States for the last 100 years? Absorption into the Democratic Party and one defeat after another. Since its obvious which side of the class war your on, you don't mind all these defeats, because whatever the hell happens your never going to be effected by it. You can just be 'realistic' by sucking up to capitalist establishment and delude yourself that your progressive.

[Zanthorus]

Ideology is fascinating but centre-left parties are actually realistic about how to achieve their goals and help workers.

Oh you mean like the British labour party, whose leader urged the american centre-"left" president Bill Clinton to bomb Kosovo, who dreamt up the idea of "humanitarian" warfare, who joined america in invading Iraq and Afghanistan, justifying the former by cooking up phony evidence about "weapons of mass destruction"?

You mean like the British labour party which has never supported a strike in it's entire history, and which has in fact frequently backed the british state against the workers when they tried to fight for their interest, even going back as far as the 1926 general strike?

Or the british labour party which has unleashed attack after attack on civil liberties, to the point where British people are now the most watched by CCTV in the world, and which has absolutely no trouble in allowing British citizens to be deported to guantanamo bay?

Or the British labour party which has largely continued the program of privatisations and neo-liberalism begun under Thatcher? And which in the general election was promising almost as large cuts to public services as the conservative party and the other bastion of the centre-"left", the liberal party, which is also a Thatcherite party in terms of economics?

Sorry but the fact is that what centre-left "realism" amounts to is opportunism and making concessions to the right-wing until they're indistuinguishable from your average conservative, and backing the state against the workers to protect the interests of the trade union beuracrats that prop them up.

[graffic]

Or the British labour party which has largely continued the program of privatisations and neo-liberalism begun under Thatcher?

You are correct that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown continued with a similar economic policy to Margaret Thatcher however it was with, if you like, a "social justice face". It wasn't the same as Thatcher at all. And Blair was not representative of the Labour party as a whole. There's a good reason to believe that he was a closet conservative who saw a chance to be prime minister.

You need a fresh, ambitious and charismatic social democratic leader who will make change and progress but of course Blair never said he was a Socialist. New Labour was always quite clear in that it supported the market and equality, and many other issues.

Its very easy to get on your high horse and hold people to account for things they never even promised


Sorry but the fact is that what centre-left "realism" amounts to is opportunism and making concessions to the right-wing until they're indistuinguishable from your average conservative

Again, thats complete bollocks. The argument that Labour and Conservatice are "just the same" is a lazy, sloppy assumption that is not true. I agree with you that "New Labour" was not perfect, no government ever is. However its a massive leap to say they are the same as Tories

[graffic]

Well, actually, Marxist and radical socialist parties are not small in numbers in many parts of the world- Latin America, South Asia, and parts of Europe, to name a few. The United States is actually somewhat unique in how utterly marginal the radical left is. So by 'most people', I presume you mean Americans.

By "most people" I mean primarily in Europe and America. Although I don't have knowledge in terms of the rest of the world. Perhaps there are many more countries where the rule applies


Maybe its because the ideology of capitalism so totally permeates American society

What is the "ideology of capitalism"? Or is it the case that many people don't give a shit about ideology in general.

[Zanthorus]

You are correct that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown continued with a similar economic policy to Margaret Thatcher however it was with, if you like, a "social justice face". It wasn't the same as Thatcher at all.

Obviously they weren't throwing Miners out on the streets, largely because they didn't have to however.

But how about the transfer of control over monetary policy to the bank of england? How about part-privatising the Royal Mail by introducing downstream access? Then after things started going tits up, talking about full-privatisation as a remedy to their initial blunder?

I mean you can't possibly be serious. Inequality during the 2007/2008 period as measured by the GINI coefficient was at it's worst then at any point since records began in 1961. What on earth does that have to do with "social justice"?


You need a fresh, ambitious and charismatic social democratic leader who will make change and progress but of course Blair never said he was a Socialist. New Labour was always quite clear in that it supported the market and equality, and many other issues.

Its very easy to get on your high horse and hold people to account for things they never even promised

Why the hell am I not allowed to criticise people for not doing things they didn't promise?

Maybe I am also not allowed to criticise Hitler since after all he never promised not to be a genocidal mass murderer?


Again, thats complete bollocks. The argument that Labour and Conservatice are "just the same" is a lazy, sloppy assumption that is not true.

Are you going to back that up with facts or just appeal to "common sense" or some other nonsense like every other labourite?

[graffic]

Obviously they weren't throwing Miners out on the streets, largely because they didn't have to however.

But how about the transfer of control over monetary policy to the bank of england? How about part-privatising the Royal Mail by introducing downstream access? Then after things started going tits up, talking about full-privatisation as a remedy to their initial blunder?

You don't understand what New Labour was about. They said from the beginning that they supported equality and the market. That's one of the reasons why the Sun newspaper was confident enough to back Blair, even if the Sun was always quite cautious in its backing. You might think those policies were shit, and you can complain. It doesn't affect me that you care


Inequality during the 2007/2008 period as measured by the GINI coefficient was at it's worst then at any point since records began in 1961.

I agree with your worry and concern, I doubt Blair actually cares though.


What on earth does that have to do with "social justice"?

Again, you are completely mistaken. The minimum wage is important to remember, the progress in minority rights, independence of judiciary, to name but a few. You are correct that inequality was at its worse since records began in 1961.


Are you going to back that up with facts or just appeal to "common sense" or some other nonsense like every other labourite?

The general election was pretty clear. GB said before he lost that he would cut public spending with far less gusto than the Bullingdon Boys are now planning to do. That was a huge dividing line.

[bricolage]

You don't understand what New Labour was about.

Mandelson pretty much summed up what it was about in '96; “Its [New Labours] strategy is to move forward from where Margaret Thatcher left off, rather than to dismantle every single thing she did”

[RedKnight]

Hello all,

I posted here a long time ago, and as time passed, I forgot my login details, but also my viewpoints about life changed. I've turned away from Marxism for many reasons, some that are discussed a lot here, but some not so much. My main gripe is really the mentality of Communists, not so much the theoretical ramblings and all that.

I turned away principally for the reasons that I post below. Over time, I've become a strange type of moderate right-wing (don't worry, I hate Republicans), I find the most attraction in the ideals of Social and Christian Democracy. I'm secular, but find the "spirit" of many of Catholicism's social teaching inspiring. I still believe strongly in an egalitarian society that cares for all, but in a different form. I want to end up working for a NGO that helps the downtrodden, or go into politics. :)

Anyways, here are my main points that turned me away from the Communist ideal. These are general points that I took a little time to write down after reflecting on my time as a Communist, I thought it would be nice to share, just in case you wanted to reflect on it yourselves Though I am likely liable to even more so run afoul of the "Commie Club" I will respond by first saying that I understand where you are coming from. I also have observed what appears to be political cults of personality developing within the left, especially in the aftermath of the fall of the U.S.S.R. Now small groups of people are setting up there own particular party lines. And as some may have noticed here, if you dare to disagree with the established leadership in the central commitee, you become censured, and restricted. Now I still regard myself as a Communist, in spite of all that I've experienced, in my interactions with certain comrades on the net. But I can also to a general degree agree with at least much of your points. Like in my case, on here, I expressed disapproval of late term abortion, and certain terrorist tactics, and strategic alliances with non-leftist groups, like for example Hezbollah, and wound up restricted to the opposing ideologies section. But, in closing I would not necessarily feel that you'd have to gravitate towards social democracy, and/or social liberalism either. There are other broadly leftwing ideologies to be influenced by, like for instance democratic socialism, libertarian socialism, and/or neomarxism. I myself have personally been heavily influencedby these currents, in my own personal political philospohy.

[Sturzo]

Interesting responses. Some that are indicative of what I was trying to convey.

Let me state I am sympathetic to the conditions that Communists subscribe to the reason of their cause. I don't like today's or the past's capitalism very much either. I don't like consumerism, nor do I like it's homogenizing influence on people's lives, or the fact that corporations can make an individual profit without individual responsibility at the expense of millions.

Some are correct to point out were generalizations, as these are my general experience of leftists over a period of years, both online and in real life. Some are better than others, while others, worse. But, overall this is how I feel that changed my perspective on things.

I got to Nicaragua two years ago, and live with some rural peasants that the organization that I did an internship with worked with. Those people had literally nothing, but were so generous and gracious with me that it made me feel quite guilty. :blushing: They were fervent Catholics, which bound them into a close community that relied on each other for support, and they lived in almost medieval living conditions.

It's originally what got me thinking. For the Communists who decide to attack me because I "support" a system that causes millions of deaths a year, are really superficial thinking on how the world works. To divide things to "everything capitalist here" and "everything communist here" is pretty naive, and it gives a false pretense to take up moral righteousness that one's "side" is better than the other "side." The world's problems are deep and complex, some rooted in political corruption, others are rooted in far-reaching historical conflicts that aren't easily resolved.

If one ever bothered to do any thinking, there are hundreds, if not thousands of organizations that work to do so much good for people in Africa or other down-trodden people in the world. For instance, NGOs, religious orders, popular initiatives, and social business are all things that aim and do make people's every day's lives better in these regions. And they've done more for those in need than those who accuse me of "supporting" this "system" will ever do.

There's a lot of evil and bad things in the world, there has been since the beginning of man to this day. I agree there are grave flaws and problems in the world today, but deciding to lump all of it together and declaring it "capitalism's fault" is juvenile.

Although is not aimed at everyone, I think it's funny and pathetic that people decide that since capitalism is just infinitely worse that makes the crimes of Communists against humanity "ok." I think it's an unfair comparison to make, as the 'Communist' states were guided and controlled by a monolithic ideological force. While in western society, where there are many entities, corporations, individuals, organizations, governments, some bad, some good, has impacted the world in many different ways. It's an open society with many different strains of thought, aspirations and forces. Some are obviously more dominant than others, and I believe that is something that can be changed within this open society we live in. I think Communists, purposefully or not would destroy that openness.

On more philosophical note, there's a problem I have with believing that there are general laws of history, which I think lean towards authoritarian and totalitarian underpinnings. The growth of our knowledge still continues as human society goes along, there really can't be predictive or determinate way to predict how history is unfolding are the paths human society can take.

It really comes to this, I could either continue to following a discredited ideology that failed in it's promise and caused massive bloodshed and misery, or I could choose to make a difference in people's lives now in my lifetime.

Again, this isn't aimed everyone completely, but what I think is are the wrong attitudes in leftist thought.

[Gecko]

You apparently didn't even stick around enough to learn.

This is simply an unfounded stereotype. We disagree on many issues, even within tendencies. Marxist-Leninists may or may view other classes in less well-developed countries as potentially revolutionary, for example. For every "rigid" belief, you have a million others. Put ten leftists in a room and you'll have 11 opinions. Leftists change opinions over time.

You speak like you've met all of us. :lol:

Every worker around the world, despite differences in language, culture, and experiences, will have the same material interests at the end of the day. They should care. This is why we exist.

The fact that you seem to take everything said about them at face-value says much more about your naivety about how the world works than our supposed "rigidity." We know the FARC is evil in the ways you described above because the Colombian government says so - the same government whose highest officials themselves often have questionable pasts, possible connections to cartels, and which employs paramilitaries which are far worse than the FARC. I suppose if the bourgeois press is not honest it's news to you.

But we don't divide everything into two classes, so this is bullshit. Everything that follows is a strawman.

We don't do this, the current system does. One only need to hold a job or be harassed by the IRS to see this. This is the type of bile that rightists use to prove capitalism is "individualist." Strawmen follow.

Furthermore, before you try browbeating communists about supporting the oh-so-evil-regimes, think twice. 235,000,000 children have died since 9/11 from hunger, mostly in African and Asian countries. This happens because of the effects of centuries of imperialism and modern neocolonial capitalism (without which the system couldn't have created such massive amounts of wealth to give to the top 1%) on those countries. But barely anyone realizes the root cause of the problem, oftentimes even blaming it on those people themselves. Yet when Cuba has a toilet-paper shortage because of the embargo, the Floridian media cries bloody murder and we all get a lesson in the evils of communism. So before you weep crocodile tears about the horrors of communist totalitarianism, ask yourself where you're coming from.


sturzo forgot to add a few more things to his list.. such as arrogance,elitism and a condescending attitude from the likes of those captain cubas out there towards someone with valid questions or concerns about communism..

it's people on the left such as captain cuba that have by and large turned the working class off towards the left..

a true communist is patient and has communist discipline to teach and lead the working class..not humiliate and insult them.

this is precisely why the left in the USA is so fucked up because of arrogant petit bourgeoise leftists and their liberal white skinned noblesse oblige ..wolves in sheeps clothing ..

one day when the shit goes down and gets for real these snotty little petit bourgeoise snobs are going to have to deal with the workers in the streets..
never forget ..the workers have long memories... :mad:

[Sturzo]

Also the far-left is like an identity. Its quite an all-consuming ideology, like being religious. Its who you are and obviously if it defines you, people are very defensive about it. You are either with them or against them. Its something very unattractive about it for sure

I agree with this strongly. Another reason why I abandoned it after I realized not everyone in the world was so bad.

[#FF0000]

I agree with this strongly. Another reason why I abandoned it after I realized not everyone in the world was so bad.

It sounds like you just surrounded yourself by dumb communists.

And what's this "after I realized not everyone in the world is so bad" thing? Being a communist means you have to be a bitter person or something or...?

[Barry Lyndon]

Interesting responses. Some that are indicative of what I was trying to convey.

Let me state I am sympathetic to the conditions that Communists subscribe to the reason of their cause. I don't like today's or the past's capitalism very much either. I don't like consumerism, nor do I like it's homogenizing influence on people's lives, or the fact that corporations can make an individual profit without individual responsibility at the expense of millions.

Some are correct to point out were generalizations, as these are my general experience of leftists over a period of years, both online and in real life. Some are better than others, while others, worse. But, overall this is how I feel that changed my perspective on things.

I got to Nicaragua two years ago, and live with some rural peasants that the organization that I did an internship with worked with. Those people had literally nothing, but were so generous and gracious with me that it made me feel quite guilty. :blushing: They were fervent Catholics, which bound them into a close community that relied on each other for support, and they lived in almost medieval living conditions.

It's originally what got me thinking. For the Communists who decide to attack me because I "support" a system that causes millions of deaths a year, are really superficial thinking on how the world works. To divide things to "everything capitalist here" and "everything communist here" is pretty naive, and it gives a false pretense to take up moral righteousness that one's "side" is better than the other "side." The world's problems are deep and complex, some rooted in political corruption, others are rooted in far-reaching historical conflicts that aren't easily resolved.

If one ever bothered to do any thinking, there are hundreds, if not thousands of organizations that work to do so much good for people in Africa or other down-trodden people in the world. For instance, NGOs, religious orders, popular initiatives, and social business are all things that aim and do make people's every day's lives better in these regions. And they've done more for those in need than those who accuse me of "supporting" this "system" will ever do.

There's a lot of evil and bad things in the world, there has been since the beginning of man to this day. I agree there are grave flaws and problems in the world today, but deciding to lump all of it together and declaring it "capitalism's fault" is juvenile.

Although is not aimed at everyone, I think it's funny and pathetic that people decide that since capitalism is just infinitely worse that makes the crimes of Communists against humanity "ok." I think it's an unfair comparison to make, as the 'Communist' states were guided and controlled by a monolithic ideological force. While in western society, where there are many entities, corporations, individuals, organizations, governments, some bad, some good, has impacted the world in many different ways. It's an open society with many different strains of thought, aspirations and forces. Some are obviously more dominant than others, and I believe that is something that can be changed within this open society we live in. I think Communists, purposefully or not would destroy that openness.

On more philosophical note, there's a problem I have with believing that there are general laws of history, which I think lean towards authoritarian and totalitarian underpinnings. The growth of our knowledge still continues as human society goes along, there really can't be predictive or determinate way to predict how history is unfolding are the paths human society can take.

It really comes to this, I could either continue to following a discredited ideology that failed in it's promise and caused massive bloodshed and misery, or I could choose to make a difference in people's lives now in my lifetime.

Again, this isn't aimed everyone completely, but what I think is are the wrong attitudes in leftist thought.

Do you know why those Nicaraguan peasants you worked with are so poor? It's in large part because, in order to undermine the Marxist Sandanista government(which had made major improvements in the health and education of the Nicaraguan population)30 years ago, the US government under the Reagan administration equipped an army of neo-fascist terrorists, known as "the Contras", who systematically destroyed the countries infastructure. They targeted and destroyed factories, hospitals, schools, powerlines. They slaughtered up to 30,000 people in a country of less then 4 million. Meanwhile the US navy waged economic warfare against Nicaragua by mining the countries harbors. Finally the battered, tiny country surrendered when it lost its Soviet ally and allowed the oligarchs back into power to rape the country, which they have been doing ever since. And you have seen the results.

That's a large part why Nicaragua is now one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere, with the distinction of having the largest gap between rich and poor. Its superceded only by Haiti, which also has been victimized by numerous US interventions.

This is the problem with your whole post. There's no specifics. No historical analysis, no economic analysis, no serious theoretical analysis. Just half-baked notions and various emotional appeals.

You talk about the openess of capitalist society. Really? What kind of openess? For who? What diversity of opinion really exists when a handful of corporations control 90% of what we see, what we hear, and what we read? And what is 'open' about a society that routinely destroys entire countries that don't want to go along with its economic model, Nicaragua being one of many examples(others include the Phillipines, Greece, Iran, Haiti, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, East Timor, Angola, Mozambique, the Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama etc etc etc)? I can't think of anything more 'authoritarian' then that. Not to mention that this 'open' society is built on the land theft and mass murder of millions of 'individuals' who were there before.

A word on 'general laws of history'- I thought it was proponents of capitalism like Francis Fukuyama who gleefully declared 'the end of history', pronouncing that 'free-market' capitalism was now the only way to go, so anyone with different ideas had better shut up and accept it.

Of course there are NGO's and various other groups that have done and continue to do good work. I don't discount the good work that they do on a daily basis, and I am happy to work with and support such organizations in any way I can. But the sad fact is that as long as capitalism continues to dominate the world, their struggle to fight poverty, hunger, disease and illiteracy will be an labor of Sisyphus. The way to cut the Gordian Knot is to end capitalism itself, the source of the suffering. And it is not people in armchairs like you are suggesting who are fighting to do this, but millions of people all over the world, from Venezuela to Nepal to Greece.

[AK]

or making it evolve without destroying the whole thing apart.
Oh, so you mean like reformism, yeah?

first it can be like cuba, then it can be even more democratic.
I'm wondering as to why you're so happy to shit on democracy whilst claiming that it will sooner-or-later "become" democratic.

I got a better idea: democracy from the very beginning.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Hello all,

I posted here a long time ago, and as time passed, I forgot my login details, but also my viewpoints about life changed. I've turned away from Marxism for many reasons, some that are discussed a lot here, but some not so much. My main gripe is really the mentality of Communists, not so much the theoretical ramblings and all that.

I turned away principally for the reasons that I post below. Over time, I've become a strange type of moderate right-wing (don't worry, I hate Republicans), I find the most attraction in the ideals of Social and Christian Democracy. I'm secular, but find the "spirit" of many of Catholicism's social teaching inspiring. I still believe strongly in an egalitarian society that cares for all, but in a different form. I want to end up working for a NGO that helps the downtrodden, or go into politics. :)

Anyways, here are my main points that turned me away from the Communist ideal. These are general points that I took a little time to write down after reflecting on my time as a Communist, I thought it would be nice to share, just in case you wanted to reflect on it yourselves.

Good points, all of them. Communists are so very intransigent. They have this notion that workers all over the world are conscious of their status as the exploited class. Not quite. Most workers are happy to be exploited, hoping to become the 'exploiter' sooner or later.

[Zanthorus]

It doesn't affect me that you care

What relevance does this have to anything? Labour's policies on immigration and the economy have damaged thousands of lives. I don't care if you don't care that I care. I do care if you don't care about human suffering because it makes you less of a human being in my eyes.


The minimum wage is important to remember,

That was sort of offset by Brown attempting to keep a "flexible labour market" though.


independence of judiciary

Except the Judiciary is corrupt.


The general election was pretty clear. GB said before he lost that he would cut public spending with far less gusto than the Bullingdon Boys are now planning to do. That was a huge dividing line.

The basic dividing line seemed to be more over when the cuts would take place than the amount. The governor of the Bank of England explicitly stated that the cuts that any party was going to have to make would be enough to make them unelectable.


t's an open society with many different strains of thought, aspirations and forces.

Indeed. And all that you need to get your voice heard is the right amount of cash.


On more philosophical note, there's a problem I have with believing that there are general laws of history

Well I guess communists are safe then since Marx located the guiding force of history in in free human activity.

[Skooma Addict]

I don't care if you don't care that I care.


I don't care if you don't care that he doesn't care that you care.

[MellowViper]

Well, actually, Marxist and radical socialist parties are not small in numbers in many parts of the world- Latin America, South Asia, and parts of Europe, to name a few. The United States is actually somewhat unique in how utterly marginal the radical left is. So by 'most people', I presume you mean Americans.

Maybe its because the ideology of capitalism so totally permeates American society that it is seen as non-ideological, and so anyone who challenges it is seen as " too ideological".

Yes, and how has being 'center-left' been doing in bringing gains for workers in the United States for the last 100 years? Absorption into the Democratic Party and one defeat after another. Since its obvious which side of the class war your on, you don't mind all these defeats, because whatever the hell happens your never going to be effected by it. You can just be 'realistic' by sucking up to capitalist establishment and delude yourself that your progressive. Yes, you hit the nail on the head. The left hasn't accomplished anyhting in recent decades to further the cause of workers. In the 60's, most of the, so called, "new left" was busy doing drugs and having fun when they could have been pressuring congress to ammend the constitution to make unionizing a right. When Reagan destroyed what was left of the labour movement by firing the striking air traffic controllers back in the 80's, where was the center left at? They didn't do much good for workers a decade later by voting in Clinton, who signed NAFTA. The right keeps pushing back the social contract, and the center left doesn't seem to be resisting it. The interests of the ruling class are directly at odds of the democratic interests of the working class. In order to have a functioning democracy, you need to do away with the parasytes who make us fight wars for the private interests behind the millitary complex and who rig our representative system with their disproportionate concentration of power. In this country, the more money you have, the more political power you can have. Just back the campaign of a corporate shill, and you'll make huge gains.

[Ele'ill]

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. The left hasn't accomplished anyhting in recent decades to further the cause of workers.



This isn't accurate at all and here's why- 'the left' refers to a mass movement and in that sense I agree. The left as a mass movement has not had it's shit together in the public scene since November 30th 1999 in Seattle (yes there were other successful demonstrations since then but they don't compare)

Now, 'the left' IS doing many good things in smaller groups in cities, towns, neighborhoods etc.



In the 60's, most of the, so called, "new left" was busy doing drugs and having fun when they could have been pressuring congress to ammend the constitution to make unionizing a right. When Reagan destroyed what was left of the labour movement by firing the striking air traffic controllers back in the 80's, where was the center left at? They didn't do much good for workers a decade later by voting in Clinton, who signed NAFTA. The right keeps pushing back the social contract, and the center left doesn't seem to be resisting it. The interests of the ruling class are directly at odds of the democratic interests of the working class. In order to have a functioning democracy, you need to do away with the parasytes who make us fight wars for the private interests behind the millitary complex and who rig our representative system with their disproportionate concentration of power. In this country, the more money you have, the more political power you can have. Just back the campaign of a corporate shill, and you'll make huge gains.


Yeah, liberals didn't care about much of anything. The far left did.

How do we get our neighborhoods involved in community decision making process has always been the step skipped.

That has always been the first challenge that's habitually ignored by activists. Going off on adventures in the middle of the night with hammers has always been the distraction. Know what happens when people flip a dumpster in the middle of the intersection? They make the people in the cars feel personally attacked and it has nothing to do with them not wanting to understand the message.

[Bud Struggle]

Originally Posted by MellowViper
Yes, you hit the nail on the head. The left hasn't accomplished anyhting in recent decades to further the cause of workers.

You should take a ride on RGacky's WayBack machine to 1934.:thumbup1:

[AK]

Good points, all of them. Communists are so very intransigent. They have this notion that workers all over the world are conscious of their status as the exploited class.
Actually we recognise that they aren't class concsious - that's why building class consciousness in the working class and peasantry is one of our major goals.


Not quite. Most workers are happy to be exploited, hoping to become the 'exploiter' sooner or later.
Yes, and this is a regrettable fact. Unfortunately this statement contains a flaw: it is only the first world working class which thinks it actually has the oppurtunity to climb some sort of corporate ladder (mind you, the corporate ladder does exist. Unfortunately, its old, rotten and someone's been hacking at it with a chainsaw). If this happens with third world workers, it's generally isolated cases.

So there you have it, the two most obvious statments in the world; the working class is not yet class conscious and some workers think they will be successful under capitalism. We recongise both statements and we seek to educate the workers and to prove otherwise.

[Barry Lyndon]

Sturzo, are you going to reply to my post? It kind of pisses me off that I went to the trouble of writing a lost detailed post rebutting your points and you haven't replied. I feel like I wasted my time.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

This is really good information, but when I'm out in public I'm bound to be asked for a source. It sounds believable but there is a source that gives a rough death rate number right?

I don't have a number for children, but I got this from a 2001 report from the UN Economic and Social Council:

"On average, 62 million people die each year, of whom probably 36 million (58 per cent) directly or indirectly [die] as a result of nutritional deficiencies, infections, epidemics or diseases which attack the body when its resistance and immunity have been weakened by undernourishment and hunger."