A Socialist or just "leftleaning"?

[unpopularfreedomfront]

So, a bit confused here, trying to figure out my political compass I guess, ha. Maybe someone more well versed than myself can help. I've always considered myself left but never clearly identified with any group or party. I live in Ireland and was going to join the Socialist Party here but shyed away from it. I would consider myself a Socialist, or maybe a Social Democrat - not too sure on that. Anyway, is it possible for someone, ideologically speaking, to believe in the concept of the State and still be a Socialist - this is what I believe. I don't exactly go for the whole one world stateless thing, no government etc etc. I believe in a strong State but at the same time I am a Socialist. A Socialist State.

I've never read Marx or Engels or Trotsky or anyone in fact. I've just developed my own take on things myself without going into the ideology at all. I believe in State ownership but at the same time I wouldn't be totally opposed to private enterprise as long as it's well regulated by the State. I believe in freedom of religion even though I'm atheist. I believe in a strong military but for defence not offence. I believe in the welfare state. I believe in strong State controls on such things as immigration, strong, strict yet fair and compassionate. I'm not a fucking facist am I?

I'm in my 30's now but remember when I was a kid, prob about 10 telling my mum I wanted to be a Communist, she nearly died, straight off to the local priest to be told I'd have to kill priests if I was a Communist..... (and the downside is?......) :laugh: Only kidding. So, I am a Socialist aren't I? Or am I simply "undefined left"? Thanks.

[cowslayer]

Well it would be hard to determine if you are a socialist without answering the question of if you believe in worker control of the means of production.

From your description alone, I would place you as someone as a centrist with a left lean. Possibly a Social Democrat.

But in the end it is up to many questions. Do you believe in workers self management or nationalization? Do you support bringing these economic changes through legislation through your current government or do you support an overthrow of the government and establishing your new "Socialist State"?

Either way, I believe that to be a socialist, one must have basic knowledge of socialist theory. So reading leftist writers would be good idea and then you can see if you agree with them.

Marxist.org has a lot of material to read for free! :D

[Nanatsu Yoru]

Pretty much just left-leaning, but by no means does that mean stay off the site. There are certainly more authoritarian ideologies here, but it is almost universally agreed that stateless-classless is the eventual goal (though could just be talking out of me arse here, feel free to correct me). Same deal for a strong military.

However. Not being opposed to private enterprise is almost certainly warranting a restriction. Why do you favour this?

My recommendation at this point would be to read the Manifesto. Have a look through some of the tendencies here, discuss with people, and maybe your views will change. It's happened to me.

EDIT: Pretty much what the person above me said. It wasn't there when I was typing :rolleyes:

[Commissar Rykov]

As Comrade Cowslayer said it is almost impossible to tell you what you are with such a vague description. I would also suggest going to the site he gave you as it will help you better understand various branches of communist thought.

[Imposter Marxist]

You should probably read some Marx-Engels-Lenin before you say you've figured out what you are.

Don't stop there either, those are just my recommended.

[taka því rólega]

Have you actually taken the Political Compass test at politicalcompass.org ? I found it helpful in establishing exactly "how far" left I was, then expanded from there in reading and discovering tendencies and different ways of thought.

[Trigonometry]

read some Marx; will drastically change your outlook on things and honestly felt it improved my logical thinking skill.

Hell it was only 30 something pages too, makes you think what a load of crap all that shakespeare was we were forced to learn as kids, 400+ pages but never provided a single addition to my thoughts

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Thanks for the feedback, folks. I did as one person suggested and took that political compass test thingie, seems I'm: Economic Left/Right -8.25 & Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -6.67. Now I only have to figure out what the hell that means....:confused: Seems I'm just a little left of the Dalai Lama according to their graph! Fuck me, lol! Am I a Reincarnated Socialist? An RS?

Another poster asked do I support workers controlling the means of production or nationalised industry, I'd support nationalisation - the State owns and runs the industrial complex for the benefit of the workers of course and for society at large. But having said that I've never thought much about co-ops etc, my initial gut reaction is chaos, no centralisation, splintering, industry shutting down etc. That's just an instinctual reaction though.

I hate it when I see pictures on say YouTube or whatever of Marx, Lenin etc and then Stalin - that cracks me up. I don't view Stalin as a Socialist, maybe he thought he was. I don't go in for this whole rehabilitation of Stalin concept. He was a mass murderer and it seems the Soviet Union developed into a degenerated workers State to steal a phrase. Those in power there became the new bourgeois if you see what I mean. Confused as to how that can ever be avoided? We replace the status quo but only with a new status quo who over time will quite possibly become just as corrupt as the old status quo......what to do? At least the USSR made a go at it but it went wrong, always does it seems, pity. I guess I would still have preferred a degenerated workers State than the degenerate capitalist sytem. The two biggest Socialist movements/parties in Ireland are Trotskyite. We also have a tiny Communist Party which I guess is Lenninist, maybe Stalinist. As far as I know they don't condemn Stalin which I personally find abhorrent.

People all too often get lost in ideology I think and the focus shifts from what matters to the ism's of it all. I'm left, I know I'm left, the only thing I don't know is what kind of left. In a way labels don't matter and in a way they do, lol. I believe in policies which benefit people, most especially the so-called working class. I believe in, as lame as it sounds, power to the people. But that doesn't mean I'm an anarchist because I'm not. I want the State. But a State which is the people and which represents the people. I want an inclusive society that allows dissent but is formed and based on leftwing politics and policies.

Another poster asked why I'd favour private enterprise? I'm talking small scale private enterprise not big industry, that should always be in the hands of the State. I'm talking about the person who makes a, b or c and wants to sell it at a profit, that's fine. I'm not talking about companies or multinationals. The State needs to take the means of production away from private entities and nationalise it for the greater good. I am a Socialist aren't I, lol? Maybe a so-called State Socialist or a Libertarian Socialist, ah I don't know. I think I'm not simply a Social Democrat, not really.

[ZeroNowhere]

read some Marx; will drastically change your outlook on things and honestly felt it improved my logical thinking skill.

Hell it was only 30 something pages too, makes you think what a load of crap all that shakespeare was we were forced to learn as kids, 400+ pages but never provided a single addition to my thoughtsIf it did not increase your thoughts, this may be because Shakespeare does not simply add to your thoughts, but multiplies them.

@OP: You aren't a socialist, but I don't have much of an issue with that, since you seem curious or uncertain about things, and there's not much wrong with that; I had gone through a fairly long period before I finally figured out properly what socialism actually is, and even longer before I understood Marx's views to any serious extent. If one wishes to find out about communism one's best bet is economic literature such as Grossman's 'Law of Accumulation' (if you can speak Spanish or German or any other language where it's fully translated) and 'Capital'. The thing about communism is that it's very much theory-based, and a short explanation wouldn't really be able to explain it in full, and at best would be able to enunciate the idea that a certain society would be kind of nice, which is still only on the level of utopian socialism. You can probably get some help on these forums if you get confused about one of the works (figuring out what the theory of value in 'Capital' involved took a while for me due to preconceived notions carried over from what I had heard elsewhere, although it's not that complex, really), and such.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

If it did not increase your thoughts, this may be because Shakespeare does not simply add to your thoughts, but multiplies them.

@OP: You aren't a socialist, but I don't have much of an issue with that, since you seem curious or uncertain about things, and there's not much wrong with that; I had gone through a fairly long period before I finally figured out properly what socialism actually is, and even longer before I understood Marx's views to any serious extent. If one wishes to find out about communism one's best bet is economic literature such as Grossman's 'Law of Accumulation' (if you can speak Spanish or German or any other language where it's fully translated) and 'Capital'. The thing about communism is that it's very much theory-based, and a short explanation wouldn't really be able to explain it in full, and at best would be able to enunciate the idea that a certain society would be kind of nice, which is still only on the level of utopian socialism. You can probably get some help on these forums if you get confused about one of the works (figuring out what the theory of value in 'Capital' involved took a while for me due to preconceived notions carried over from what I had heard elsewhere, although it's not that complex, really), and such.

Huh, I'm not a Socialist? And there was I thinking I was, lol. Are you sure? Then why is it that I self identify with Socialism? So, if I'm not a Socialist in the strict sense of the word then what am I, lol? Other than slightly confused. I mean I am leftwing, how can I be leftwing if I'm not Socialist? :confused: I believe in the redistribution of wealth, State control of the economy, I'd subscribe to the mantra of "......each according to his need", I believe in a classless society - all tenents of Socialism. So when someone says you're not a Socilaist this confuses me? Yes, I do believe in the idea of the nation State, yes I am not against small scale private enterprise, yes I believe in a strong defensive military, I believe in strong law and order. Holy shit, I'm not a National Socialist am I? No fucking way if someone says I am, lol. But seriously have I just mixed up two oppossing ideals here into a hodge podge of something else? Maybe I'm a neo-soc, well, you've got your neo-cons, why not a neo-soc :p Christ, I just wikied it, seems there is such a thing as a neo-socialist. No way, there's no way I'm a fascist :(

[Commissar Rykov]

Huh, I'm not a Socialist? And there was I thinking I was, lol. Are you sure? Then why is it that I self identify with Socialism? So, if I'm not a Socialist in the strict sense of the word then what am I, lol? Other than slightly confused. I mean I am leftwing, how can I be leftwing if I'm not Socialist? :confused: I believe in the redistribution of wealth, State control of the economy, I'd subscribe to the mantra of "......each according to his need", I believe in a classless society - all tenents of Socialism. So when someone says you're not a Socilaist this confuses me? Yes, I do believe in the idea of the nation State, yes I am not against small scale private enterprise, yes I believe in a strong defensive military, I believe in strong law and order. Holy shit, I'm not a National Socialist am I? No fucking way if someone says I am, lol. But seriously have I just mixed up two oppossing ideals here into a hodge podge of something else? Maybe I'm a neo-soc, well, you've got your neo-cons, why not a neo-soc :p Christ, I just wikied it, seems there is such a thing as a neo-socialist. No way, there's no way I'm a fascist :(

No one is saying you are a Fascist or National Socialist. As Comrade ZeroNowhere stated Communism and most Left-Wing ideologies are very heavily theory based thus your lack of knowledge of the theory would make it hard for you to claim to be a Socialist, Marxist, Anarchist, etc. What everyone is suggesting is you get some reading under your belt and think about the things many philosophers and theorists have discussed.

[We will rise again]

Huh, I'm not a Socialist? And there was I thinking I was, lol. Are you sure? Then why is it that I self identify with Socialism? So, if I'm not a Socialist in the strict sense of the word then what am I, lol? Other than slightly confused. I mean I am leftwing, how can I be leftwing if I'm not Socialist? :confused: I believe in the redistribution of wealth, State control of the economy, I'd subscribe to the mantra of "......each according to his need", I believe in a classless society - all tenents of Socialism. So when someone says you're not a Socilaist this confuses me? Yes, I do believe in the idea of the nation State, yes I am not against small scale private enterprise, yes I believe in a strong defensive military, I believe in strong law and order. Holy shit, I'm not a National Socialist am I? No fucking way if someone says I am, lol. But seriously have I just mixed up two oppossing ideals here into a hodge podge of something else? Maybe I'm a neo-soc, well, you've got your neo-cons, why not a neo-soc :p Christ, I just wikied it, seems there is such a thing as a neo-socialist. No way, there's no way I'm a fascist :(

Don't stress brother... You have Social-Democrat tendencies. Social-Democrats aren't opposed to Nationalization and support free Healthcare and Education.
I'm against Social-Democrats because they maintain the Capitalist system, and that's what we Left-Wingers want to abolish... And you like the idea of small/medium-scale businesses, I guess you are kind of Populist aswell.

2 important questions:

Why do you oppose free immigration?

You favour small business, is this business worker controlled (workers are total shareholders)? Or would this business have a boss that makes profit from what he sells, independently from the wages he pays?

Political Compass gives you an idea of what you are, but don't take it too seriously. My compass gave me a Libertarian Socialist/Anarchist-Communist position yet I still believe in State during transition.

[anonymousj]

please don't take this the wrong way this is not an attack just some ideas.

first your inclusion of small scale private enterprise reminds me of distributism (without the catholicism) but it seems to me this would bring about a conflict of interests between those engaged private enterprise who would like to see it expand and place them on the leading edge of new corporations and the state socialists who want to avoid such. how can you reconcile the needs of each group?

secondly as to how a revolution can avoid degrading and producing a "new bourgeoisie" as you put it. my suggestion is that power cannot be abused if you don't have concentrated power in the first place. this is why having a state is problematic it is immediately a concentration of power ripe for exploitation, in an anarchy or decentralized structure nobody is much more powerful politically than the rest and so if they try to usurp the workers society they face the wrath of there peers. a state needs a very well planed system of democratic control to keep it from being abused - how would you achieve this?

thanks for your time

[Kamos]

How can you believe in the concept of a state and a classless society either? Those two are mutually exclusive. There may be an umbrella organisation in a classless society that functions like a state in certain aspects, but the members of an actual state are in a different social class.


I mean I am leftwing, how can I be leftwing if I'm not Socialist?

From social democracy (which is not socialism) to left-liberalism (which isn't either, d'oh) there are several bourgeois identifies a leftist could identify himself with. A true socialist is also a revolutionary.

You may be on the same path as me, though. A year ago I considered myself a social democrat and a staunch believer of reformist. It was about half a year ago that I turned commie, after reading up on the revolutionary left. And that was a one-way ticket for me. So yeah, open up Das Kapital and let it all flow through you!:)

[unpopularfreedomfront]

How can you believe in the concept of a state and a classless society either? Those two are mutually exclusive. There may be an umbrella organisation in a classless society that functions like a state in certain aspects, but the members of an actual state are in a different social class.



From social democracy (which is not socialism) to left-liberalism (which isn't either, d'oh) there are several bourgeois identifies a leftist could identify himself with. A true socialist is also a revolutionary.

You may be on the same path as me, though. A year ago I considered myself a social democrat and a staunch believer of reformist. It was about half a year ago that I turned commie, after reading up on the revolutionary left. And that was a one-way ticket for me. So yeah, open up Das Kapital and let it all flow through you!:)

I think you meant to say that a revolutionary Socialist believes only a revolutionary Socialist is a true Socialist.....comrade ;) I'm not so dogmatic. If something works use it. If something benefits people use it. If something makes the lot of the people better then flow with it.

I personally don't see the idea of an organised State and a classless society as mutually exclusive. Every single Socialist (well, supposed Socialist) country that exists or has existed has organised itself as a State. The USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Kampuchea, DPRK, Laos etc. It is highly impractical to suggest that a society can survive without organising itself as a State. There is not ever going to be a world revolution, may be a nice idea but it simply will never ever happen. Now there very well could be a revolution step by step, one country at a time. But there won't be any "big bang". So, when State A turns red it has to remain an orgnaised Socialist State as the other States around it remain organised capitalist States. There is nothing wrong with a Socialist State in theory, it does not imho contradict the ideal of a classless society. In practice it is another matter of course, human nature is open to corruption and self satisfaction after all. There will always be a bureaucracy, that is inescapable.

[eyedrop]

There are certainly more authoritarian ideologies here, but it is almost universally agreed that stateless-classless is the eventual goal (though could just be talking out of me arse here, feel free to correct me). Same deal for a strong military.

Ask 10 lefties and you get 10 mutually exclusive explanations for what stateless-classless is.

That's why they can have the same "goal" but be so extremely different.

[RedMarxist]

I'd have to say I'm a socialist(not shit, just look at my user name!)/Marxist-Leninist-Maoist. I am, like the OP, not against small businesses, but I do think large monopolies should be nationalized for the greater good. I am very VERY against any form of imperialism/foreign intervention, no matter how 'helpful' to people such as those in Libya(read NOT VERY)

I also, well I'm not 100 percent sure on this, but don't hate me for saying that Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and China(fuck N. Korea!) are inspirational examples of socialist revolutions(esp. Vietnam, after all the shit they went through to get where they are today) No matter how "state capitalist" or oppressive they are. The original revolutions that created those nations were inspiring feats by genuine socialists who, I believe, wanted to do good things for their nations. PEACE OUT!:thumbup1:

[unpopularfreedomfront]

No one is saying you are a Fascist or National Socialist. As Comrade ZeroNowhere stated Communism and most Left-Wing ideologies are very heavily theory based thus your lack of knowledge of the theory would make it hard for you to claim to be a Socialist, Marxist, Anarchist, etc. What everyone is suggesting is you get some reading under your belt and think about the things many philosophers and theorists have discussed.

Yeah, I do prob need to read up on Das Kapital etc but I'm not a very dogmatic person (not to mention I have a 5 minute attention span, lol) - if it works for the benefit of society use it. Yeah, I'm being a bit tongue in cheek about the fascist thing, of course I'm not. But in a way I don't need a dead philosopher to tell me how I should think, I know my own mind - to an extent, lol, I have my own views and I still say I'm a Socialist, insofar as that is my interpretation of Socialism. I know there are different schools of thought within Socialism, in a way who is really to say who is or isn't a Socialist. I self identify as a Socialist, maybe incorrectly so but that is what I do nonetheless. Maybe I should technically use the term leftist instead. :)

[Nanatsu Yoru]

OP, I really do suggest you read the Communist Manifesto. It pretty much lays the framework for many of the socialist ideologies, and it's really not a difficult read. Kapital can be like eating sawdust at times, but I actually enjoyed the Manifesto.
That said (and this is more than a little offtopic, and sectarian, so feel free to give it a skip), but you mentioned that state control of the economy is a part of socialism. This is untrue. There are many, many leftists who are in fact against the state.

However, I am curious as to how the OP would organise his classless state. Keep in mind that a state is a hierarchical apparatus, ruling over (or, at best, organising) others. Some might call this a "caste."

Most importantly, keep coming back and asking questions. That's what the Learning forum is for :thumbup:

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Don't stress brother... You have Social-Democrat tendencies. Social-Democrats aren't opposed to Nationalization and support free Healthcare and Education.
I'm against Social-Democrats because they maintain the Capitalist system, and that's what we Left-Wingers want to abolish... And you like the idea of small/medium-scale businesses, I guess you are kind of Populist aswell.

2 important questions:

Why do you oppose free immigration?

You favour small business, is this business worker controlled (workers are total shareholders)? Or would this business have a boss that makes profit from what he sells, independently from the wages he pays?

Political Compass gives you an idea of what you are, but don't take it too seriously. My compass gave me a Libertarian Socialist/Anarchist-Communist position yet I still believe in State during transition.

You said Social Democrats aren't opposed to nationalisation, not only am I not opposed to it, that is actually what I want.

Why do I oppose free immigration? It can be detremental to the State. We have seen this in Ireland. In 2004 many eastern European states joined the EU and Ireland allowed immediate and unrestricted access to our labour market for workers from those countries. A big mistake. It is fine when an econmy is booming but not so good when it's bust. We now have 14% unemployment and many jobs are filled by non-nationals, often to the dismay of Irish nationals. Many tens of thousands of non-nationals are now in reciept of unemployment payments, again not a great situation. This isn't the fault of the immigrants, not at all. It's the fault of poor government policy and planning. My own wife came to Ireland as an immigrant, I am not anti-immigration, I am for controlled immigration. As is my wife btw. I'm a realist, a pragmatist but I do have core leftist principles.

Anyway, regrading private enterprise, I'm simply talking about the guy or girl who sits at home and makes whatever, sole trader types without employees. When it doesn't interfere with their work routine, when it doesn't disrupt the State, when it doesn't lead to the mass accumalation of personal wealth then it is fine. But industry in the wider sense should always, always be in State hands. Everything from the taxi cabs to the steel mills to the hotels to the pc components plant. This is an ideal, if it's not practical or simply doesn't work then allow more private enterprise, I'm not hard and fast on the rules, I'm not dogmatic.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

please don't take this the wrong way this is not an attack just some ideas.

first your inclusion of small scale private enterprise reminds me of distributism (without the catholicism) but it seems to me this would bring about a conflict of interests between those engaged private enterprise who would like to see it expand and place them on the leading edge of new corporations and the state socialists who want to avoid such. how can you reconcile the needs of each group?

secondly as to how a revolution can avoid degrading and producing a "new bourgeoisie" as you put it. my suggestion is that power cannot be abused if you don't have concentrated power in the first place. this is why having a state is problematic it is immediately a concentration of power ripe for exploitation, in an anarchy or decentralized structure nobody is much more powerful politically than the rest and so if they try to usurp the workers society they face the wrath of there peers. a state needs a very well planed system of democratic control to keep it from being abused - how would you achieve this?

thanks for your time

On your first point, there's no problem, if they don't do as their told we shoot them :lol: But seriously, when I speak of small sclae enterprise I mean someone making something and selling it for a profit or someone providing a service and making a profit - not big business. If they get greedy and want to expand and threaten the basis of the State around them and the general wellbeing then you stop them.

Power can always be abused whether concentrated or decentralised. Unless every single person is autonomous you will need a power system. How would I achieve a very well planned system of democratic controls? Simple, cupcakes. If they are good they get cupcakes, if they are bad they don't. I think the cupcake philosophy works well. Ok, ok - I don't know, I don't know how to stop a corrupt elite forming, constant rotation, 12 month terms for the bureaucracy, citizens courts....not too sure, I just know a State can't function without a State apparatus. It would be chaos. And while I know you'll say "but we don't need a State", sorry, we do. :) Might be a great idea if we didn't but to be honest we do, we do need the apparatus of the State, and not just as a transitional measure. Just my take on it.

Why the hell does every post I write have to be moderated, god damn it! Hey, stop oppressing me man.......:p I'm an autonomous individual......:D

[unpopularfreedomfront]

OP, I really do suggest you read the Communist Manifesto. It pretty much lays the framework for many of the socialist ideologies, and it's really not a difficult read. Kapital can be like eating sawdust at times, but I actually enjoyed the Manifesto.
That said (and this is more than a little offtopic, and sectarian, so feel free to give it a skip), but you mentioned that state control of the economy is a part of socialism. This is untrue. There are many, many leftists who are in fact against the state.

However, I am curious as to how the OP would organise his classless state. Keep in mind that a state is a hierarchical apparatus, ruling over (or, at best, organising) others. Some might call this a "caste."

Most importantly, keep coming back and asking questions. That's what the Learning forum is for :thumbup:

I'll give the Manifesto a go probably, just to correct any inaccuacies in it:blink: Are there any revised editions, lol? How would the classless State be organised - equality for all basically. But yes, there would need to be a organising force, a government, a politburo if you want to use that term BUT subject to the people, elected by the people from the people and acting in accordance to the wishes of the people, not imposing upon the people. It's an ideal that can, as we have seen, go wrong.

You did say that there are many, many leftists who are against the State -I'm sure there are but by that token there must also be many, many leftists who are for the State also?

[We will rise again]

Your are a Nationalist. Don't forget many nationals are jobless because of their snob attitude toward crap jobs. Many are receiving Welfare and are perfectly capable of working. Immigrants do the jobs that locals don't want to. :thumbup1:

Where I live, you can only get Welfare after discounting X amount to the State anyway, so it isn't like they just come over and receive immediate benefits. Nobody should ever be considered illegal either, people are people, no matter where they come from.

The Nation is a bourgeois concept, so drop it.


And while I know you'll say "but we don't need a State", sorry, we do.

Also, you are really Pro-State, yet you fear corruption? They go hand in hand my friend.

You sound quite fascist with your powerful state and immigration laws.

[Ned Kelly]

Why do I oppose free immigration? It can be detremental to the State. We have seen this in Ireland. In 2004 many eastern European states joined the EU and Ireland allowed immediate and unrestricted access to our labour market for workers from those countries. A big mistake. It is fine when an econmy is booming but not so good when it's bust. .

Brother, a socialist economy is not affected by these 'booms and busts', just look at the capitalist world during the Great Depression, and compare that to the growth of the Soviet Union during the same time!

[Manic Impressive]

I would say you're a socialist but you're just at the beginning of the learning process. I think the state is a common hang up especially for people from an old labour or republican tradition. If you stick with it read some books, watch some lectures on youtube, go on some marches and get as active as you can be in local groups, hang around the learning forum and ask questions you may well find that just as in society the concept of the state will wither away inside your mind.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

I'll give the Manifesto a go probably, just to correct any inaccuacies in it:blink: Are there any revised editions, lol?
I'm not sure you give the Manifesto enough credit, comrade. Maybe it was written quite a time ago, but it still rings true, even today. Marx made mistakes, certainly, but the Manifesto was not one of them.


How would the classless State be organised - equality for all basically. But yes, there would need to be a organising force, a government, a politburo if you want to use that term BUT subject to the people, elected by the people from the people and acting in accordance to the wishes of the people, not imposing upon the people. It's an ideal that can, as we have seen, go wrong.
Just because someone is elected, they are not of a different class. I agree with you that it has gone wrong in the past, and likely will go wrong again.


You did say that there are many, many leftists who are against the State -I'm sure there are but by that token there must also be many, many leftists who are for the State also?
At first. That would be some of the Marxist-Leninist ideologies, such as Stalinism and Maoism. That said, I don't have much experience with either, so I could be mistaken. If you're interested, I would recommend checking the groups for the tendencies. There you can find out some more and ask more specific questions.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Thanks for the replies, folks. Can't get used to saying "comrades", comrades ;) Anyway, one person said I'm a nationalist and that my take on things was quite fascist, lol. No I am not fascist. Fascists make me sick and I have no time for them. As for nationalist, well, yes to an extent but I don't see that at odds with being left. I'm a left nationalist if that makes any sense, lol. In Ireland the word "nationalist" has another meaning, it means one who wants an end to British imperialism and to have a united Ireland. Also described as a Republican (not in the US sense of the word) Now, I am not a member of Sinn Fein, didn't support the IRA but I would overall agree with the aims of both. Even if not with the tactics used.

I'll try to read some Marx but with the 5 minute attention span which I have it'll be tough going, lol. Maybe to an extent my mind can't let go of the notion of the State, the Nation - that's probably correct. I am not trying to belittle the views of others I'm just not sure how a society could function without an apparatus? That strikes me more as Anarchism than Socialism?

As for immigration, yes, I support a strict yet fair and compassionate immigration policy. Even supposed Socialist countries had/have immigration policies! Unless there is an immediate worldwide revolution, very unlikely, then immigration controls are needed. It's issues such as this which mean I find it hard to join my local branch of the Socialist Party or the SWP. However I'd still support them and vote for them given the chance. I agree with some of what they say but not with others. Oh well.

[Kamos]

Thanks for the replies, folks. Can't get used to saying "comrades", comrades ;) Anyway, one person said I'm a nationalist and that my take on things was quite fascist, lol. No I am not fascist. Fascists make me sick and I have no time for them. As for nationalist, well, yes to an extent but I don't see that at odds with being left. I'm a left nationalist if that makes any sense, lol. In Ireland the word "nationalist" has another meaning, it means one who wants an end to British imperialism and to have a united Ireland. Also described as a Republican (not in the US sense of the word) Now, I am not a member of Sinn Fein, didn't support the IRA but I would overall agree with the aims of both. Even if not with the tactics used.

I'll try to read some Marx but with the 5 minute attention span which I have it'll be tough going, lol. Maybe to an extent my mind can't let go of the notion of the State, the Nation - that's probably correct. I am not trying to belittle the views of others I'm just not sure how a society could function without an apparatus? That strikes me more as Anarchism than Socialism?

Nationalism is to the political right. Wanting the colonial rule of Britain to end is not nationalism. In fact, many leftists outside Ireland would love to have that.

The state is not needed. Think about it. What does the state do for you? Well, that could be organised by a number of people of equal standing. Quite easily, I'd even say. No state doesn't mean things are disorganised, it just means that nobody gets the power to rule over millions of people. The abolition of the state is just one of the (biggest) parts of achieving a classles society. You also don't appear to know what anarchism is. Anarchism is as revolutionary as every other ideology in here (that doesn't get banned or restricted on sight). The difference is how the members of these ideologies want to realise the revolution.


As for immigration, yes, I support a strict yet fair and compassionate immigration policy. Even supposed Socialist countries had/have immigration policies!

Such as? I haven't found anything about the Soviet Union, I don't think Cuba had restrictive immigrant policies and for the brief time that China was communist it was also at total war so it's pretty stupid to talk about immigration there. There are no socialist countries today, and the closest one we have (Venezuela) accepts immigrants readily. Also, how can an immigration policy be strict yet fair and compassionate? As far as I'm concerned, "fair and compassionate" means "let anyone in except for proven criminals".


Unless there is an immediate worldwide revolution, very unlikely, then immigration controls are needed.

Again - why?

I'm inclined to say that you're one of the average brainwashed citizens of a capitalist country (Ireland, in this case). One who may be on the right way to enlightenment (i.e. the revolutionary left), though, so don't give up.

(Though I am starting to suspect something else instead... but hey, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a few more posts.)

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Nationalism is to the political right. Wanting the colonial rule of Britain to end is not nationalism. In fact, many leftists outside Ireland would love to have that.

The state is not needed. Think about it. What does the state do for you? Well, that could be organised by a number of people of equal standing. Quite easily, I'd even say. No state doesn't mean things are disorganised, it just means that nobody gets the power to rule over millions of people. The abolition of the state is just one of the (biggest) parts of achieving a classles society. You also don't appear to know what anarchism is. Anarchism is as revolutionary as every other ideology in here (that doesn't get banned or restricted on sight). The difference is how the members of these ideologies want to realise the revolution.



Such as? I haven't found anything about the Soviet Union, I don't think Cuba had restrictive immigrant policies and for the brief time that China was communist it was also at total war so it's pretty stupid to talk about immigration there. There are no socialist countries today, and the closest one we have (Venezuela) accepts immigrants readily. Also, how can an immigration policy be strict yet fair and compassionate? As far as I'm concerned, "fair and compassionate" means "let anyone in except for proven criminals".



Again - why?

I'm inclined to say that you're one of the average brainwashed citizens of a capitalist country (Ireland, in this case). One who may be on the right way to enlightenment (i.e. the revolutionary left), though, so don't give up.

(Though I am starting to suspect something else instead... but hey, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a few more posts.)

There were immigration controls in the USSR to the best of my knowledge (also serious efforts to keep people in.....) Venezeula also has immigration controls, such as visas, 90 day stays etc etc. Why are immigration controls needed? Ok, just say tomorrow morning the US says "no immigration controls" within a few weeks or months the population would quite probably double in size. Everyone from pporeer countries who could would be flocking to the US or Canada or Ireland or whatever other 1st world country did that. It is unrealistic not to have immigration controls. In the perfect world they wouldn't be required but this isn't the perfect world.

As for your starting to suspect something else......what's that? That I'm a fascist in sheeps clothing or something, no I'm not. I was thining to myself that some would think that when I mention immigration, law and order, military etc. But no, I am not a fascist.

As for the State, imho it is needed. How would society function coherantly without a State? At some stage there will have to be leadership - call it what you will, workers councils etc etc but it is simply another form of government, another form of the State. More localised but still in essence, the State if you see what I mean. I simply don't get how co-ops are meant to organise and run smoothly? What happens when co-op A disagrees with co-op B or when people within one co-op can't even agree? Disaster. Tell me exactly how you see workers co-operatives working? I believe in State control of industry for the benefit of society. The State are the workers, the workers are the State.

About Northern Ireland. If the ideal of the State shouldn't matter then why should it matter who controls territory a, b or c? If it is only, solely. about class struggle then those one time occupied countries should never have even bothered rebelling against their imperialist masters, no? I am a Nationalist in the sense that I want a united Ireland. I want an end to British occupation. Now today I wouldn't support violent struggle to reach those ends but I would have supported it back during the Irish War of Independence had I been around then. I am not an extreme Nationalist/Republican.

I may not fit neatly into one or other branches of Socialism yet I still consider myself a Socialist. I think I could probably pick up the Communist Manifesto and interpret it in any number of ways - just as the Lenninists, Maoists, Stalinists, Trotskyites, Hoxhaists, Titoists (have I forgotten anyone?) have done. Just as the Trots may not consider the Stalinists to be really Socialist and vice versa who's to say I am not Socialist, other than someone else who calls themselves Socialist or Communist who themselves will be disowned by some other branch of the Socialist family for not being Socialist or Communist. I believe in core princips of Socialism.

To go back to Venezuela, recently a member, an organising activist, of the Socialist Party (Trotskyite) here in Ireland told me Chavez was not a Socialist rather he was a populist. Maybe. I haven't really come to a conclusion. But to suggest that Venezuela is the closest thing we have to a Socialist "State" would be disputed by many others who also call themselves Socialist.

[Kamos]

There were immigration controls in the USSR to the best of my knowledge (also serious efforts to keep people in.....)

Proof?


Venezeula also has immigration controls, such as visas, 90 day stays etc etc.

Would ask for proof here too but I'm not really concerned about Venezuela.


Why are immigration controls needed? Ok, just say tomorrow morning the US says "no immigration controls" within a few weeks or months the population would quite probably double in size. Everyone from pporeer countries who could would be flocking to the US or Canada or Ireland or whatever other 1st world country did that. It is unrealistic not to have immigration controls. In the perfect world they wouldn't be required but this isn't the perfect world.

That's stupid. Immigrants wouldn't flock to the US. Immigration would probably increase drastically, until everyone realises that the US is bad enough as it is for the native working class, and even worse for immigrants when there already so few jobs and so many jobseekers.


As for the State, imho it is needed. How would society function coherantly without a State? At some stage there will have to be leadership - call it what you will, workers councils etc etc but it is simply another form of government, another form of the State. More localised but still in essence, the State if you see what I mean.

"Workers' councils" aren't the state. By state, we mean a separate class of people who are entitled to control people's lives against their will.


I simply don't get how co-ops are meant to organise and run smoothly? What happens when co-op A disagrees with co-op B or when people within one co-op can't even agree? Disaster. Tell me exactly how you see workers co-operatives working? I believe in State control of industry for the benefit of society. The State are the workers, the workers are the State.

Yep, that's democracy for you. True democracy, not the bourgeois non-democratic nonsense we have now.


About Northern Ireland. If the ideal of the State shouldn't matter then why should it matter who controls territory a, b or c?

Well, it doesn't. Ireland and England, just two of the many capitalist states of the world. It's not about controlling the territory, to which nobody will have a right in communism.


If it is only, solely. about class struggle then those one time occupied countries should never have even bothered rebelling against their imperialist masters, no? I am a Nationalist in the sense that I want a united Ireland. I want an end to British occupation. Now today I wouldn't support violent struggle to reach those ends but I would have supported it back during the Irish War of Independence had I been around then. I am not an extreme Nationalist/Republican.

That's fine enough - but that's not nationalism. If you want an united Ireland to end British occupation, then you're just anti-colonialist. I do wonder, however, what's the deal with those last two sentences? You say you are opposed to British occupation and would have fought against it earlier, but not anymore? Why is that?


I may not fit neatly into one or other branches of Socialism yet I still consider myself a Socialist. I think I could probably pick up the Communist Manifesto and interpret it in any number of ways - just as the Lenninists, Maoists, Stalinists, Trotskyites, Hoxhaists, Titoists (have I forgotten anyone?) have done. Just as the Trots may not consider the Stalinists to be really Socialist and vice versa who's to say I am not Socialist, other than someone else who calls themselves Socialist or Communist who themselves will be disowned by some other branch of the Socialist family for not being Socialist or Communist. I believe in core princips of Socialism.

What do you think then, what are the core principles of socialism? I'm interested because as far as I'm concerned you're breaking at least two of those (ideologically) according to your previous posts.


To go back to Venezuela, recently a member, an organising activist, of the Socialist Party (Trotskyite) here in Ireland told me Chavez was not a Socialist rather he was a populist. Maybe. I haven't really come to a conclusion. But to suggest that Venezuela is the closest thing we have to a Socialist "State" would be disputed by many others who also call themselves Socialist.

Populism is an interesting term - I find it difficult to say much about it, since in my experience the word is meaningless and more often associated with just simple demagogy than anything else. According to Wikipedia, populism is "political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people's needs and wishes". Isn't that part of what communism is about? Providing for every single person, not using them as cheap labor? So why are the two exclusive? I must admit, I'm also in a bit of "Learning-mode" here. What I know for sure, though, is that other than Cuba, nothing could come close today. (Though in fact Cuba may be further down the path, again, this is something I couldn't say for sure.) People bring up China, Laos, Vietnam, but those are socialist only in name. And North Korea isn't socialist either, it's Juche (a rightist ideology that tries to act like it's part of the left).

[We will rise again]

Populism is an extremely vague term. I would say it's hand in hand with demagogy like Kamos said.

You have bourgeois tendencies that need to be purged.

The State will always be your enemy, because you can't achieve Communism with a hand-full of bureaucrats running things.

Also your love for a strong State is a sign of Fascist mentality, no matter how much you deny it. The State exists not only to control, but to assure class divisions and protect private property.

Like I said, drop it.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Populism is an extremely vague term. I would say it's hand in hand with demagogy like Kamos said.

You have bourgeois tendencies that need to be purged.

The State will always be your enemy, because you can't achieve Communism with a hand-full of bureaucrats running things.

Also your love for a strong State is a sign of Fascist mentality, no matter how much you deny it. The State exists not only to control, but to assure class divisions and protect private property.

Like I said, drop it.

If my "love" for a strong State is fascist then every single Socialist state that exists or has existed must be fascist using your logic. I have tendencies that need to be "purged", lol, no, as I said Socialism and the State can co-exist. The State when truly representative of the people is the people. Explain your concept of no State? Who organises the power, how is the decision making process organised between different workers co-operatives etc? A recipe for disaster.

The State when not representative and not working for the people but against the people assures class division but a State of the people doesn't.

[We will rise again]

The State when not representative and not working for the people but against the people assures class division but a State of the people doesn't.

A State for the People? You mean a state for Bureaucratic interests? Corruption in the USSR was rampant. I'm sure a better system can be designed, but the State system of former "Socialist" countries is very imperfect.

In fact, the States of China and of USSR obviously brought back Capitalism from within the party itself. A State can never represent it's People completely democratically, because an individual working in a party will always have more decision power than an individual proletarian.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Proof?



Would ask for proof here too but I'm not really concerned about Venezuela.



That's stupid. Immigrants wouldn't flock to the US. Immigration would probably increase drastically, until everyone realises that the US is bad enough as it is for the native working class, and even worse for immigrants when there already so few jobs and so many jobseekers.



"Workers' councils" aren't the state. By state, we mean a separate class of people who are entitled to control people's lives against their will.



Yep, that's democracy for you. True democracy, not the bourgeois non-democratic nonsense we have now.



Well, it doesn't. Ireland and England, just two of the many capitalist states of the world. It's not about controlling the territory, to which nobody will have a right in communism.



That's fine enough - but that's not nationalism. If you want an united Ireland to end British occupation, then you're just anti-colonialist. I do wonder, however, what's the deal with those last two sentences? You say you are opposed to British occupation and would have fought against it earlier, but not anymore? Why is that?



What do you think then, what are the core principles of socialism? I'm interested because as far as I'm concerned you're breaking at least two of those (ideologically) according to your previous posts.



Populism is an interesting term - I find it difficult to say much about it, since in my experience the word is meaningless and more often associated with just simple demagogy than anything else. According to Wikipedia, populism is "political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people's needs and wishes". Isn't that part of what communism is about? Providing for every single person, not using them as cheap labor? So why are the two exclusive? I must admit, I'm also in a bit of "Learning-mode" here. What I know for sure, though, is that other than Cuba, nothing could come close today. (Though in fact Cuba may be further down the path, again, this is something I couldn't say for sure.) People bring up China, Laos, Vietnam, but those are socialist only in name. And North Korea isn't socialist either, it's Juche (a rightist ideology that tries to act like it's part of the left).

No, immigrants would flock to the more developed countries p without a doubt. You then would have a period of chaos, ethnic tension and quite possibly violence and war.

Yes, I am opposed to the British occupation of northern Ireland. When Ireland fought for her independence had I been around I too would have fought the British. I would not however have entered into armed struggle against the British to remove them from northern Ireland, that will come all in it's own good time. Ntionalist in northern Ireland are increasing in number and Unionists are decreasing in number, within the next 20 or 30 years there will be a Nationalist majority in northern Ireland, that will pave the way for a united Ireland.

What do I believe the core princips of Socialsim to be? Nationalisation of industry, equality for all, a classless society - three core principles. I also believe in the rule of law and respect for human rights. I guess I am a democratic Socialist. I don't see anarchy as the logical conclusion of Socialism. You do, so be it. What you want will never happen, what I want may.

In everyday parlance the word "populist" has in reality become a derogatory term, never mind it's true meaning, if someone refers to another as a populist is a diminution of that person, it suggests pandering to the masses without actually having any substantive ethos or ideology of ones own. That is reality of how the word is used. I don't mind Chavez in the least, whether populist or not I would still rather a Chavez like figure than a rightwinger any day of the week.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

A State for the People? You mean a state for Bureaucratic interests? Corruption in the USSR was rampant. I'm sure a better system can be designed, but the State system of former "Socialist" countries is very imperfect.

In fact, the States of China and of USSR obviously brought back Capitalism from within the party itself. A State can never represent it's People completely democratically, because an individual working in a party will always have more decision power than an individual proletarian.

Yes, there is corruption in every State, it is a little thing called human nature. What makes you think there wouldn't be corruption in a workers co-operative? You are making the assumption that in a workers co-operative everything would be peaches and honey........that's not a certainty. A State run correctly can represent the people but very tight controls would need to be in place - and enforced if need be. The people elect those who "govern", who represent and organise the State on behalf of the society. In a workers co=op who speaks for the co-op? Who represents the co-op at lets say discussions with other co-op's? Does the co-op chose a "leader", someone to speak for them, someone to represent them? If they do you also have a power structure.

[WeAreReborn]

Yes, there is corruption in every State, it is a little thing called human nature. What makes you think there wouldn't be corruption in a workers co-operative? You are making the assumption that in a workers co-operative everything would be peaches and honey........that's not a certainty. A State run correctly can represent the people but very tight controls would need to be in place - and enforced if need be. The people elect those who "govern", who represent and organise the State on behalf of the society. In a workers co=op who speaks for the co-op? Who represents the co-op at lets say discussions with other co-op's? Does the co-op chose a "leader", someone to sopeak for them, someone to represent them? If they do you also have a power structure.
Ugh the human nature argument. You realize people are influenced heavily by society right? Human's have never, and can never be, studied in a perfectly blank environment to study human nature. Human's are much to adaptable.

But anyways, I suggest you read up on Communist and Anarchist literature, because you do not fully understand the concept of a "state" or say workers co-ops. I suggest Marx certainly, like others have said, I personally recommend "Conquest of Bread" by Kropotkin, if you are interested in Anarcho-Communism. But if you want to understand all the tendencies, and then see which tendency you are most compatitible with, you have a lot of reading cut out for you comrade.

[Rafiq]

Read marx and engels.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Ugh the human nature argument. You realize people are influenced heavily by society right? Human's have never, and can never be, studied in a perfectly blank environment to study human nature. Human's are much to adaptable.

But anyways, I suggest you read up on Communist and Anarchist literature, because you do not fully understand the concept of a "state" or say workers co-ops. I suggest Marx certainly, like others have said, I personally recommend "Conquest of Bread" by Kropotkin, if you are interested in Anarcho-Communism. But if you want to understand all the tendencies, and then see which tendency you are most compatitible with, you have a lot of reading cut out for you comrade.

I'm an Unpopularist :D I'll write a book and then launch the Unpopularist Tendency, lol.

[We will rise again]

What are your views on homosexuality and LGBT?

[apawllo]

Concerning the immigration discussion, it's important to realize why those borders exist aside from purely a nationalist stand point if you're to consider yourself a socialist. For example, a capitalist based in one nation-state can decide to exploit workers in a separate state where the cost of labor is less to increase surplus value, or might take commodities from another state to add further value. It's no secret that these boundaries put certain nation-states at the mercy of others, but they're also one tool used keep the workers in a place subordinate to the capitalist class.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

What are your views on homosexuality and LGBT?

What are my views? Lol, people can be whatever they want to be - makes no difference to me, why should it. Why didn't you ask me what is my view on marijuana use? Or what is my view on porn? Or what is my view on mayo on rye bread? Is it a prerequesite that a Socialist either agrees or disagrees with someones right to decide/express their own sexuality? Personal issues are just that, personal.

[unpopularfreedomfront]

Concerning the immigration discussion, it's important to realize why those borders exist aside from purely a nationalist stand point if you're to consider yourself a socialist. For example, a capitalist based in one nation-state can decide to exploit workers in a separate state where the cost of labor is less to increase surplus value, or might take commodities from another state to add further value. It's no secret that these boundaries put certain nation-states at the mercy of others, but they're also one tool used keep the workers in a place subordinate to the capitalist class.

Ideally there wouldn't be a nation State, ideally. However until such a situation ever comes about then nation States are needed. I am a realist,a pragmatist not bound by pure dogma. Not thinking that every second person needs to be purged of impure capitalist, reactionary thoughts. In a free, democratic, Socialist society there must be room for dissent otherwise that very same society is self defeating and in time will consume itself.

Am I a revolutionary Socilaist - I don't know, the most revolutionary I ever got was spray painting the offices of our largest rightwing party here many moons ago. Not exactly revolutionary, lol. Childish perhaps. Do I believe it's my way or no way at all, no. I want inclusiveness not exclusiveness. You won't bring about a Socialist system at the barrel of a gun, through coersion or fear. People have to be convinced that a Socialist society is worth it, worth the effort and from what I am seeing here many people are preoccupied with dogma, dogma, dogma. Well, if that's the road people want to take so be it, if such inflexibility is what people want, so be it. In such a scenario all I can say is good bloody luck with the revolution because as sure as day turns to night it will never come. And that means the right wins and that, is a real pity.

[Kamos]

Ideally there wouldn't be a nation State, ideally. However until such a situation ever comes about then nation States are needed. I am a realist,a pragmatist not bound by pure dogma. Not thinking that every second person needs to be purged of impure capitalist, reactionary thoughts. In a free, democratic, Socialist society there must be room for dissent otherwise that very same society is self defeating and in time will consume itself.

Am I a revolutionary Socilaist - I don't know, the most revolutionary I ever got was spray painting the offices of our largest rightwing party here many moons ago. Not exactly revolutionary, lol. Childish perhaps. Do I believe it's my way or no way at all, no. I want inclusiveness not exclusiveness. You won't bring about a Socialist system at the barrel of a gun, through coersion or fear. People have to be convinced that a Socialist society is worth it, worth the effort and from what I am seeing here many people are preoccupied with dogma, dogma, dogma. Well, if that's the road people want to take so be it, if such inflexibility is what people want, so be it. In such a scenario all I can say is good bloody luck with the revolution because as sure as day turns to night it will never come. And that means the right wins and that, is a real pity.

Few people here want the revolution to come through coercion or fear, or at the barrel of a gun. However, if we let capitalists and fascists just do whatever they want, what good is a revolution? And yes, every second person (at least) does need to be purged of reactionary thoughts. That is, like, the prerequisite of the revolution. If you don't support suppression of reactionary ideologies, you don't support propaganda and you don't support socialist measures in practice until the revolution is actually completed (ha), then you're not a realist, but in fact, the exact opposite. You want revolution to just come out of thin air and mold our planet into a nigh-ideal society, which also tolerates capitalists, fascists, reactionaries, whoever else works day and night to break us. What's the deal with that?

Communism strives for the most ideal society possible. It doesn't settle for "communism wherever possible, but hey, if there are problems along the way, screw it". If we don't want a society where everyone can live ideally, what are we fighting for? We're just another group of warlords then.


What are my views? Lol, people can be whatever they want to be - makes no difference to me, why should it. Why didn't you ask me what is my view on marijuana use? Or what is my view on porn? Or what is my view on mayo on rye bread? Is it a prerequesite that a Socialist either agrees or disagrees with someones right to decide/express their own sexuality? Personal issues are just that, personal.

I thought you came here to discuss your views? If you don't want to do that, why don't you ask a mod to close this thread so we wouldn't have to waste our time trying to talk about stuff with you?

[RedMarxist]

your right, you can't expect to get support if you force socialism on people, or try to. The revolution will only come when people want it to come, which I hope will happen in my lifetime(probaly wont). People on the far Left are to interested in arguing who was right/wrong to get things done. Why can't all the different kinds of communists form a united front to fight capitalists and have a revolution?

[We will rise again]

Why can't all the different kinds of communists form a united front to fight capitalists and have a revolution?

Because they end up dogmatic and intolerant to other Leftists, it's ridiculous. They just destroy the movement from within.

Our common goal is eradicating Capitalism, let's focus on that instead of wondering what to do after we've gotten rid of it.

One thing at a time comrades.