Undecided - Any thoughts?

[sidewriting]

I have trouble placing myself into any left-wing political camp, most left-wing ideologies contain elements that I am adamantly opposed to. I am sixteen and passionate about pacifism, ant-racism, human rights, environmentalism, anti-fascism, ant-consumerism and freedom of expression. A friend of mine tried to get me to join the liberal party of Canada, however I am opposed to the concept of a society which core principals are greed and mindless consumerism - and therefor an anti-capitalist. This leaves me in a predicament... what exactly am I? Does anyone else fall into my category and if so.. what do they refer to themselves as? What groups and movements could I identify with?

I do not see myself as a communist, marxist or any-other ideology that relies upon an authoritarian government, I really value individuality above all else... I enjoy the concept of anarchism but it seems far to idealistic, almost unreal. As a pacifist I also have a problem with the violence associated with a revolution, could peaceful means be used to bring about a revolutionary change?

Please don't flame me for my ignorance, I am sixteen.. I have become a member of this site to educate myself... if you disagree with me, correct me. I'm open minded to others opinions and what you say will influence me politically...

[Broletariat]

Why are you passionate about pacifism? You do understand that Revolution will most likely entail violence, mostly in the act of self-defence, but violence nonetheless correct?

[Lyev]

Hi, I'm also 16, but, first of all, why do you think Marxism "relies upon an authoritarian government"? Could you explain why you think this? But bear in mind, if you're referring to the Bolsheviks and Russia, "authoritarianism" needs to put into context. We need to look at the how the revolution degenerated, in a "Thermidor" effect. Firstly, the revolution was isolated. Lenin was really counting on the revolution in Germany (which failed in 1919) for trade and support etc., but secondly, Russia was hugely backward. It needed industrializing and modernizing. And look at America when they industrialized - were the conditions any worse than in Russia, what with the black slavery, child labour and genocide of Native Americans? And if you can ditch your pacifism (the bourgeoisie, i.e. ruling class, defend themselves with guns too you know: putting flowers down the barrels isn't exactly going to lessen their resolve) then it looks like you're leaning towards libertarian socialism, or anarchism.

[sidewriting]

Why are you passionate about pacifism? You do understand that Revolution will most likely entail violence, mostly in the act of self-defence, but violence nonetheless correct?


I always thought of violence and intimidation as methods used by the oppressing forces, couldn't the economic turmoil created by widespread protests be enough to bring down a government, the more they kill, imprison and hurt the more public opinion would turn against them... if enough people mobilized for a cause, surely it would take more than violence to stop them?

[Paulappaul]

I do not see myself as a communist, marxist or any-other ideology that relies upon an authoritarian government

Marxists are not all Authoritarian, there are some, who aspose a Powerful Centralist state, but there are also some like me, who view this as exploitative as Capitalism. We are called Libertarian Marxists or Libertarian Socialists. If you want more information on this brand of Marxism, you can PM and we'll talk about it.



I really value individuality above all else...

Alot of currents of Socialism stress the role of Individual in Socialism. Read about Marx's theories of Alienation and maybe some Individualist writtings as well.


I enjoy the concept of anarchism but it seems far to idealistic, almost unreal.

Marxism and Anarchism are pretty closely related, if you view one or the other idealistic you cross each other out for the most part. Why would you say Anarchism is idealistic?


As a pacifist I also have a problem with the violence associated with a revolution, could peaceful means be used to bring about a revolutionary change?

Personally I'd say no. However alot of Anarchists are Pacifists and alot of non-marxian socialists are as well.

Sounds to me like you understand the problems with Capitalism, but are disillusioned with what Socialism, Anarchism and Communism are.

[Lyev]

I always thought of violence and intimidation as methods used by the oppressing forces, couldn't the economic turmoil created by widespread protests be enough to bring down a government, the more they kill, imprison and hurt the more public opinion would turn against them... if enough people mobilized for a cause, surely it would take more than violence to stop them?But "widespread protest" would entail getting fucked up by riot police. Police ("bodies of armed men", as Lenin called them), whilst doing some good work, are agents of the state, with the purpose of defending private property. Are you honestly willing to firstly: preach to other people to not defend themselves when getting hammered by riot shields? And secondly: willing to let yourself, and other comrades, be beaten into a pulp by a policeman's baton, without fighting back?

[Broletariat]

I always thought of violence and intimidation as methods used by the oppressing forces, couldn't the economic turmoil created by widespread protests be enough to bring down a government, the more they kill, imprison and hurt the more public opinion would turn against them... if enough people mobilized for a cause, surely it would take more than violence to stop them?
You still didn't directly answer my question as to "why are you passionate about pacifism." I ask so I know how to proceed.

From your current post and that bolded it seems that you dislike violence because the oppressing class uses it, okay. The oppressing class also uses oxygen, so I will assume that's not your main quip with violence.

Yes it would take more than violence to stop them, but the State has a whole shitton of violence at their disposal, if you don't defend yourself your revolution could easily be dismantled and demoralised before it even gets going.

[chegitz guevara]

I always thought of violence and intimidation as methods used by the oppressing forces, couldn't the economic turmoil created by widespread protests be enough to bring down a government, the more they kill, imprison and hurt the more public opinion would turn against them... if enough people mobilized for a cause, surely it would take more than violence to stop them?

Yes, but the more they kill, the more they kill. If people re going to be killed, better them than us, since they're trying to kill us. We're just fighting back.

Keep in mind, they're killing us now.

[Urko]

I bet my right hand that if you(sidewriting) had more power and control you wouldn't be pacifist. I see pacifism as very hypocrite, sure don't bully the little kids and all that, but then the little kids get a chance to become bullys them selves, if they do, then they forget about pacifism. Because they're the bully now they don't need pacifisms protection...

[RED DAVE]

I do not see myself as a communist, marxist or any-other ideology that relies upon an authoritarian governmentYoung Comrade, you are confusing the state capitalist governments of Russia, China, etc., with socialism. These authoritarian regimes had litte or nothing to do with socialism.

A lot of shit is going to fly in this thread.

RED DAVE

[sidewriting]

I bet my right hand that if you(sidewriting) had more power and control you wouldn't be pacifist. I see pacifism as very hypocrite, sure don't bully the little kids and all that, but then the little kids get a chance to become bullys them selves, if they do, then they forget about pacifism. Because they're the bully now they don't need pacifisms protection...

I don't understand what point you are trying to convey here... Are you saying my pacifism is false and that really behind it hides a hypocritical bully. I am pacifist because I value the use of non-violent methods above all else and that taking a life is wrong. I am no fan of guns-for-hire otherwise known as "the police" but I would never wish to hurt one, they are misguided not evil. Violence will simply never convert anyone to your cause...

[sidewriting]

Young Comrade, you are confusing the state capitalist governments of Russia, China, etc., with socialism. These authoritarian regimes had litte or nothing to do with socialism.

A lot of shit is going to fly in this thread.

RED DAVE

I have heard that argument before, what would the utopian socialist state be then? Has such a state ever occurred in history? How can Communism work without an authoritarian government?

- Sorry for all the questions!

[Broletariat]

I have heard that argument before, what would the utopian socialist state be then? Has such a state ever occurred in history? How can Communism work without an authoritarian government?

- Sorry for all the questions!
Communism is MEANT to work without a State. Communism is necessarily a Classless society. A society very briefly existed like that at one point.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/pam_intro.html

Do keep in mind it's an Anarchist source and is a little biased against the Communist section of The Republic, it does a well enough job at describing a society on its way to Communism though.

Don't worry about all the questions, that's what we're here for.

[Zapatas Guns]

You sound like an anarchist, like myself. I am not a pacifist though because no one will just give up their power freely. Plus I am not Dr Martin Luther King or Ghandi, I am simply not that brave. More power to you if you are into nonviolent resistance as it has proven to be effective in the past. Keep in mind though it is called Revolutionary Left. A bloodless coup is unlikely.

Think of anarchy as an elimination of hierarchy more than an absence of government.

[Adil3tr]

I have trouble placing myself into any left-wing political camp, most left-wing ideologies contain elements that I am adamantly opposed to. I am sixteen and passionate about pacifism, ant-racism, human rights, environmentalism, anti-fascism, ant-consumerism and freedom of expression. A friend of mine tried to get me to join the liberal party of Canada, however I am opposed to the concept of a society which core principals are greed and mindless consumerism - and therefor an anti-capitalist. This leaves me in a predicament... what exactly am I? Does anyone else fall into my category and if so.. what do they refer to themselves as? What groups and movements could I identify with?

I do not see myself as a communist, marxist or any-other ideology that relies upon an authoritarian government, I really value individuality above all else... I enjoy the concept of anarchism but it seems far to idealistic, almost unreal. As a pacifist I also have a problem with the violence associated with a revolution, could peaceful means be used to bring about a revolutionary change?

Please don't flame me for my ignorance, I am sixteen.. I have become a member of this site to educate myself... if you disagree with me, correct me. I'm open minded to others opinions and what you say will influence me politically...

A lot of people want peace and love. The radical left are just people who realized what it takes to achieve a society following those values, albeit, using different language. Understand that legitimate Marxism contains no authoritarianism. Become a socialist, a marxist, or an anarchist. We have well developed theory is much more possible than Utopian.

[this is an invasion]

You don't need to place yourself in any camp. Think about the things that make sense to you. Read as much as you can. You'll figure it out on your own.

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

If you're anything like me, and love books but hate the cost;

This is an invaluable resource when it comes to reading up on Marxist theory.

http://www.marxists.org/

[Blackscare]

One thing to keep in mind is that a revolution is the establishing of one class's dominance over another. During the revolutions that created the basis for states that existed today, it was the just emerging capitalist classes (those who employed labor) establishing themselves over the Aristocracy (land renters).

A worker's revolution would entail the working class dominating the capitalist class. There is no way around that. The capitalist class will in no way just decide to lay down and give up, they must be challenged with force.


Also as the first person to respond to you hinted at, the characteristics of revolutions hinges on the material circumstances in which they occur. Early on there were major splits between the movements in what we would now call the "first world" and those in the primarily agrarian country of Russia (and later China, etc).

The communists in Germany were very libertarian, and denounced the idea of a vanguard party. This was at least partly because they existed in already heavily industrialized countries, with much larger segments of the population who were actually working class. The Proletariat of Germany, therefor, was much more strong and able to take a greater role in directing the revolution personally. The Bolsheviks faced more of an uphill battle, they had to both industrialize a nation, electrify a nation, and corral the peasants into line with proletarian politics, given that they made up about 80% of the population. We can kind of see, looking at it from that angle, why a strong vanguard party was necessary, or perceived as so.

I personally believe that in countries in the industrialized west, a revolutionary movement will not follow the model of the Bolsheviks. I support what they did, but it does not apply to the situation I find myself in (being a resident of the USA).

[9]

To be honest, OP, I think you should just try to learn more right now. Try this (http://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm). I am not going to make a case to you about why Marxism is 'right for you', because at this point, I don't think that it is. And I think that, if "anti-consumerism" is at the heart of your interest in learning about politics, Marxism and anarchism won't have anything to offer. But maybe your ideas about "consumerism" will change as you come to understand more about capitalism.

[9]

Ah, semi-ninja'd.

[Jam in Ears]

Hey comrades, I too can empathize with questioning whether violence is or is not necessary. For me it is almost a paradox. When I was little, I used to associate war as solely a right winged force of oppression but it is now evident that there are two sides fighting. Though many wars are started out of greed, some are still out of revolution. For example, the United States’ civil war resulted in granting slaves freedom with the Thirteenth Amendment after Confederation.

There are many leftist thinkers that believe that a non-violent change can occur, though it may be much slower than a violent revolution.

A dilemma I have found in the violent form of revolution was that if we win and take control, the once-oppressors and their followers will not change their harmful ways. They will still fight to take back control. What do we do then? Do we kill them ALL? That’s a lot of people! I am not saying that stopping capitalism is impossible, but the conservatives seem to outnumber us. We have to at least grow in our numbers slowly and THEN turn the tables. But at that point, exactly HOW are we going to win with being violent when the rich capitalists are the ones that have all the best weapons. Right now money buys you weapons. For example, Zapatista revolution in southern Mexico is a anarcho-communist one. They have turned pacifist and say that their “word is their weapon.” The website narconews.com is good for info on them (it wouldn't let me post cause i had to leave 25 posts on revleft before i can post links)

I really don’t know what ideology I prefer. I am young and there is still so much time for me to think about this stuff and I want to be well informed rather than presumptuous when I do choose to form this identity. I think it is wrong to discard the ideas of both pacifism and a violent revolution altogether because maybe it depends on the case.

It really does suck not knowing where you stand on the political spectrum because one feels vulnerable, like one can fall anywhere- which is scary. It still is an adventure.

Thanks for reading :)