3 things that piss you off about the far left/ you think holds it back

[durhamleft]

1) Sectarianism.
2) Stalinism.
3) Arrogance.

[PhoenixAsh]

Serious doubts about this thread....but I'll play for now.

I think the thing that holds the revolutionary left back is dogmatism and the slow development and implementation of new ideas which counter act the wisest path of thesis, antithesis and synthesis which would make the revolutionary left far more flexible and adaptable to chages in society.

[Summerspeaker]

1) Our marginality. It's hard to accomplish much when you're just scraping by.

2) The endless dominance games, including thinly veiled white, dude, and straight supremacy.

3) The lack of genuine human affection and emotional intensity.

I could go on and on. :)

[cu247]

I'd say something about the lines of:

1) Sectarianism

2) Marginality

3) People's ignorance about what the revolutionnary left really is.

[Nolan]

1. Jews

2. SSTALINISTSS

3. srs threads

[Nolan]

But no, seriously:

1. Not enough time since the end of the Cold War.

2. neoliberal gloating everywhere and nationalist renaissances in some places.

3. Shitty politics among the left. Reformists and sellouts.

4. Basic ignorance about the world among much of the working class, such as american exceptionalism. This is thanks to the ruling class.

[Nolan]

Wait that's 4...

[RedSunRising]

1) Sectarianism.
2) Stalinism.
3) Arrogance.

So sectarianism pisses you most of you and than you use a sectarian slur that Trotskyites use to cover people from social democrats or ultra-leftist psychoes? Bit dim that.

1. Child abuse apologists.

2. Trotskyites because they are lying scum and often trendy wankers and child abuse apologists on top of that.

3. People who want to be nice to Trotskyites.

[hatzel]

1) Worship of the Soviet Union and every action ever undertaken by the Soviet Union or any Soviet citizen, even those which would otherwise be condemned had they been undertaken by / in any other country, on the assumption that the Soviet Union was absolutely perfect and wonderful in every possible way, and any seeming imperfection is just an illusion which can be excused by the revolutionary nature of said imperfection.

2) Discounting any argument, no matter how solid, by saying 'but Marx said...'

3) Use of words to the effect of 'Maoism is the most superior form of Marxist thought, as proven by the fact that the Maoist cadre is spilling rivers of blood across the world in the fight for global liberation...and what are you guys doing, except taking money to spy for the Nepalis?' by people currently living in Norwich.

[Spawn of Stalin]

1. Child abuse apologists.
2. Imperialist apologists
3. Liberalism

[Nolan]

3 more:

1. People like Kassad claiming Marxism-Leninism.

2. People like Mao claiming anti-revisionism.

3. Asshats like the FRSO.

[Nolan]

1. White guilt.

2. Political correctness.

3. Jewish corruption. like marx

[hatzel]

1) Hats

2) Shoes

3) Canes

[Nolan]

1. Z

2. O

3. G

[L.A.P.]

1. M-L's who support North Korea
2. Those who say "STALIN=HITLER"
3. RevLeft users who use threads as a way to throw a temper tantrum about their restriction (congratulations on that, by the way).




1) Sectarianism.
2) Stalinism.
3) Arrogance.

Ummmmm...... anyone else notice this?

[NoOneIsIllegal]

1. Maoist Rebel News

2. The Vegan Marxist

3. Revleft

:D

[hatzel]

1. Maoist Rebel News

You don't feel his little uniform attracts people to the cause, then? :(

[NoOneIsIllegal]

It doesn't look dirty enough, as though he just got back from the battlelines of waging war... at the mall.

[Dr Mindbender]

1- Inability to relate to the working class or hold any political ground.
2- Stubbornness of hanging onto conventional Marxist dogma.
3- Lack of participation in the electoral process (in the British isles).

We live in a new time when its Islam and islamic extremism is the new bogeyman. The left needs to take advantage of the distraction and re-invent itself.

[Agent Ducky]

It doesn't look dirty enough, as though he just got back from the battlelines of waging war... at the mall.

Well, where else are you supposed to wage war these days?

[Zanthorus]

The main problems with the left today are it's opposition to dogma and the resulting eclecticism and poverty of theory. We have laughably small sects and individuals claiming that they've overcome the supposed 'contradictions' and 'victorian age analysis' of the classic works of Marx and Engels, and when the 'updates' come along they constitute a tapestry of eclectic rubbish entirely lacking in rigour and completely saturated with the dominant ideologies. Marxism was the result of the solidification of definite social trends, not the result of an isolated individuals brain, and as such it cannot be overthrown by so-called unique, freethinking individuals debating things among one another in the classic style of bourgeois parliamentarianism. As opposed to the counter-revolutionary politics of the left, the task of Communist militants is to maintain the programme, which remains invariant since it's solidification in the Manifesto of 1848, against all the falsifiers, modernisers and revisionists which attempt to drag Marxism into the mire of reformism, workerism, nationalism, democratism/anti-totalitarianism, formalism and all the other tendencies against which 'our party' has built up an unbreachable iron wall, to pass beyond which is treachery.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

So sectarianism pisses you most of you and than you use a sectarian slur that Trotskyites use to cover people from social democrats or ultra-leftist psychoes? Bit dim that.

1. Child abuse apologists.

2. Trotskyites because they are lying scum and often trendy wankers
Trendy wanker lying scum, that's me!


and child abuse apologists on top of that.
Cute, coming from someone who believes that raping women is excusable.


3. People who want to be nice to Trotskyites.

Yeah, kill 'em all, let Uncle Joe sort it out later.

Wot happened, was a Trotskyist baby sitter mean to you or something? Your friend Red Cat baits Trots all the time, at least he/she has a sense of humor about it. You on the other hand sound like you actually believe the shite you spout.

Do you have anything at all to back up your blanket assertion?

[ModelHomeInvasion]

More of a personal pet peeve than anything else, but the overwhelming amount of middle class youths occupying influential positions in leftist organisations and parties gets on my nerves a bit. Though I am a huge admirer of Lenin and others like him, I also have a quiet contempt for the "radical intelligentsia".

[Magón]

1. The Left's hate for pretty much any Middle Class youth. (I by no means, come from the Middle Class and have criticized them too, but damn, they're not all bad, even the ones I know who are political aren't bad. Plus, there really isn't a Middle Class anymore here in the US, everyone's either rich, and was so before, or Middle Class and becoming poor like the rest of us.)

2. Dogma

3. "Arm Chair Revolutionaries" who do nothing more for inciting Class Struggle, than sitting behind their computer or whatever, acting like they're helping out, when they're really not doing anything but talking over and over again, about shit that happened nearly 100 years ago. Sort of the "Talk the Talk, but can't Walk the Walk."

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

I like how we all agree the left needs to be more inclusive and then schism on small issues. No, wait, I hate it! Uhhh, uhhhh.... which way are we supposed to be? :p


The changing line between property for workers control and the property you can have rights on when it comes to different leftists.
Environmentalism can be a bit preachy. We're all doomed because we're too talkative and active and no one likes us.
Probably much of the 'historical' examples of Communism.

Okay, for real, I think the Left makes progress in some territories, at some points in time, and that they lose ground in some areas at what may or may not be the the same time in a different place. It's a struggle, that's why we never win, we can only struggle harder than the bourgeoisie in the long term.

[black magick hustla]

The main problems with the left today are it's opposition to dogma and the resulting eclecticism and poverty of theory. We have laughably small sects and individuals claiming that they've overcome the supposed 'contradictions' and 'victorian age analysis' of the classic works of Marx and Engels, and when the 'updates' come along they constitute a tapestry of eclectic rubbish entirely lacking in rigour and completely saturated with the dominant ideologies. Marxism was the result of the solidification of definite social trends, not the result of an isolated individuals brain, and as such it cannot be overthrown by so-called unique, freethinking individuals debating things among one another in the classic style of bourgeois parliamentarianism. As opposed to the counter-revolutionary politics of the left, the task of Communist militants is to maintain the programme, which remains invariant since it's solidification in the Manifesto of 1848, against all the falsifiers, modernisers and revisionists which attempt to drag Marxism into the mire of reformism, workerism, nationalism, democratism/anti-totalitarianism, formalism and all the other tendencies against which 'our party' has built up an unbreachable iron wall, to pass beyond which is treachery.


I agree with the invariance of the communist program, but it has very little to do with marxism, and I think this is the reason why the bordigists were mistaken. Marxism is a theoretical framework to intuit social dynamics and in a certain way, to interpret the invariant communist program, but anarchists can grasp the invariant communist program without being acquainted with marx at all. militants have to be at daggers drawn and protect the program, which will never change or reform until class society gets destroyed.

[jake williams]

I think the assertion that anything bad in the Soviet Union was caused by Stalin as a uniquely omnipotent and ahistorical individual is pretty problematic, and has really held back our ability to actually understand and overcome its political, theoretical and strategic errors.

I think the main problem for the radical left in the advanced capitalist countries though is the anti-communism and even anti-politics of the "New Left". There was a broad rejection of mass-based politics, never mind class-based politics, that has in many places degenerated into the vulgar anti-politics of postmodernism. Right reformism in the labour movement hasn't helped at all either, but that's been a problem basically forever.

[Zav]

The top three things that annoy me about the Left are:

1.) Sectarianism
2.) Obsession with past successes without focusing on current issues as much as we probably should be
3.) Its small current size

In that order.

[Ocean Seal]

1. Sectarianism
2. Dogmatism
3. The fact that we can't get people to listen to us like the Ron Paul "revolutionaries" and that they think they know what socialism is.

[the Leftâ„¢]

1) Fear of openly espousing the ideas we hold in the public forum

2) Sectarianism (everyone says this xD)

3) Complacency as a niche of society rather than a larger organic community

[LegendZ]

So sectarianism pisses you most of you and than you use a sectarian slur that Trotskyites use to cover people from social democrats or ultra-leftist psychoes? Bit dim that.

1. Child abuse apologists.

2. Trotskyites because they are lying scum and often trendy wankers and child abuse apologists on top of that.

3. People who want to be nice to Trotskyites.

1. People who talk shit over the internet(Stalinists and Trots) to flamebait each other and turn threads into shit throwing contests. To put it simply. You.
2. This retarded Stalinist vs Trot crap.
3. People who can't grow the fuck up and get over this Stalin vs Trotsky crap that happened almost a century ago between two OTHER people.

[jake williams]

"Dogmatism" isn't really a problem. This might surprise some people, but I don't know very many leftists in real life whose views aren't largely based on a pretty honest assessment of the world. If anything the real problem is the refusal to make serious political and ideological commitments towards class politics. Tactical inflexibility is a problem, but it's a fairly minor one.

Sectarianism is a problem, but sectarianism is a problem almost everyone who complains about it is guilty of. It's not actually easy to overcome serious ideological differences.

[genstrike]

1. Decrying "sectarianism" on the internet
2. People who actually think haphazardly merging all left groups into one is going to cure sectarianism and thus bring on the revolution
3. People on revleft who think anything on revleft matters

[Minima]

More general then just the far left, but:

1) Apoliticism, and cynical wisdom (including my own!)
2) Stupidity (including my own!)
3) How messed up people can become, due to their struggles (or lack of them)

[Blackscare]

1) Identity politics
2) Identity politics
3) Identity politics

[Zav]

"Dogmatism" isn't really a problem. This might surprise some people, but I don't know very many leftists in real life whose views aren't largely based on a pretty honest assessment of the world. If anything the real problem is the refusal to make serious political and ideological commitments towards class politics. Tactical inflexibility is a problem, but it's a fairly minor one.

Sectarianism is a problem, but sectarianism is a problem almost everyone who complains about it is guilty of. It's not actually easy to overcome serious ideological differences.
I'm a hypocrite. I claim to despise sectarianism and yet I also despise the Authoritarian half of the Far-Left. That's something I need to work on. I should start by stopping being so bitter about what the USSR did to Catalonia. It was wrong, certainly, but this doesn't mean that all Stalinists support it.

[Savage]

1.Pedophiles
2.Zionists
3.Pedophile-Zionists

[durhamleft]

1. M-L's who support North Korea
2. Those who say "STALIN=HITLER"
3. RevLeft users who use threads as a way to throw a temper tantrum about their restriction (congratulations on that, by the way).




Ummmmm...... anyone else notice this?

knew someone would say that but i dont regard stalinism as being anything iike or similar to most leftist ideologies

[SacRedMan]

1. Revisionism

2. Commercials

3. The fucked-up capitalist youth

[El Chuncho]

1) Sectarianism.
2) Stalinism.
3) Arrogance.

*Yawn*. :rolleyes:


1) Sectarianism.
2) Trotskyist spammers who are too preoccupied with trying to cause a fight with ''Stalinists''.
3) Arrogance.

Also, I find it amusing that you claim you hate Sectarianism yet included something in your post that is sure to offend others and cause another Sectarian flame war...:sneaky:

[Rooster]

1. Education
2. Education
3. Education

http://theislamicstandard.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/tony_blair.jpg

Ha well.

1. Preoccupation with top down socialism (reformism, vanguard party politics, social democracy)
2. Very limited engagement with, and alienation of, the working class. Often involving things that take focus away from class struggle.
3. Preaching.
4. Pointless lists.

[ZeroNowhere]

1. Education.
2. Agitation.
3. Organization.

[hatzel]

1) Reading
2) Riting
3) Rithmetic

[Demogorgon]

The worst thing about the far left is happiness at being on the margins, everything else flows from that. When people dislike those who manage to attract mainstream attention and accuse them automatically of selling out or becoming reformist they are embracing being marginalised. When people get incredibly preoccupied with rooting out perceived flawed ideas and maintaining ideological purity they are most certainly happy at being irrelevant. And for heaven's sake when you start trying to vet membership of your organisation and only let in people you approve of, you are actively rejoicing in it.

[RedSunRising]

Trendy wanker lying scum, that's me!

Cute, coming from someone who believes that raping women is excusable.



Exactly, thanks for the honesty....And just below that is a perfect example of a Trotskyite lie. I have never said that rape is excusable. Vicious lie, worthy of the master himself.

[MaximMK]

Religious people

[Matty_UK]

The worst thing about the far left is happiness at being on the margins, everything else flows from that. When people dislike those who manage to attract mainstream attention and accuse them automatically of selling out or becoming reformist they are embracing being marginalised. When people get incredibly preoccupied with rooting out perceived flawed ideas and maintaining ideological purity they are most certainly happy at being irrelevant. And for heaven's sake when you start trying to vet membership of your organisation and only let in people you approve of, you are actively rejoicing in it.

This.

I think there's a sort of "nerd" mentality going on with a lot of the left. I don't mean to say leftists are literally nerdy, but there's a lot of value placed on arcane and obscure knowledge in leftist circles, similar to the way knowledge of a certain type of music, or movies or tv shows, is treated in other "nerd" milieus. On a march in Manchester a few months ago I overheard a CPGBer sneering about how someone asked him if he was a council communist and proudly pronouncing that he is in fact a "partyist." When I first started browsing revleft that sort of talk sounded vaguely impressive/respectable to me in the context of this forum, but hearing it in real life just made me think "omg, shut up, who cares?" Thankfully not everyone on the left is like that and I think things have genuinely improved over the last few years as more people have gotten involved, but it's still quite alienating for a lot of people, the way that that you're expected to develop an extensive theoretical knowledge to gain any credibility as an activist. I'm not saying knowledge of history and theory isn't important, it is very important, but unless it's combined with a strong ability to perceive the world around you as it is without trying to fit it into a preconceived theoretical framework it becomes an obstacle rather than an aid. Another problem is the lack of emotional intelligence, where people's views are often dismissed with political epithets and they are designated as an enemy because, for example, they might be religious. This is dogmatism, pure and simple, and a form of bigotry. This sort of nerdish factor is also what lies behind our problems with sectarianism. It reminds me a little of hipsters who pour particular scorn on some band or other liked by other hipsters, and I think the psychological process underlying it is identical.

I think this is what Zizek is getting at when he says that to continue Lenin you must not just repeat what he said but alter his ideas based on a perceptive analysis of the socio-economic conditions in your own country, as Lenin did with Marx - and he is completely correct.


Along the lines of what Demogorgon said, I think the hostility to elections is a major problem, and a good example of how theory clouds an accurate assesment of the situation. There are inherent limits to what you can do in government, but I don't think it is impossible to get around them with intelligence and integrity, and with appropriate popular support - whatever you think of Chavez, the situation in Venezuela has shown that the ties between the bourgeoisie and the state are not impossible to sever through legal means. What is impossible, however, is gaining legitimacy amongst the bulk of the population without taking part in elections.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

1) Dogma.
2) Cult-like mentality of some organizations/the arrogance and deluded sense of self-worth and importance of some organizations.
3) The smug attitude of many leftists I've met, it kind of resembles the smug attitude of the organizations they belong to.

Generalizations, yes, but they are based on my experience in the left and with leftists as well as my observations of organizations that I have been a part of or worked with. We're an embarrassment a lot of the time.

[Red Future]

1). Pol Potist's
2).Constant Splits
3) The New Left "attitude"

[Franz Fanonipants]

everyone's worship of the past is basically the big one.

[Demogorgon]

This.

I think there's a sort of "nerd" mentality going on with a lot of the left. I don't mean to say leftists are literally nerdy, but there's a lot of value placed on arcane and obscure knowledge in leftist circles, similar to the way knowledge of a certain type of music, or movies or tv shows, is treated in other "nerd" milieus. On a march in Manchester a few months ago I overheard a CPGBer sneering about how someone asked him if he was a council communist and proudly pronouncing that he is in fact a "partyist." When I first started browsing revleft that sort of talk sounded vaguely impressive/respectable to me in the context of this forum, but hearing it in real life just made me think "omg, shut up, who cares?" Thankfully not everyone on the left is like that and I think things have genuinely improved over the last few years as more people have gotten involved, but it's still quite alienating for a lot of people, the way that that you're expected to develop an extensive theoretical knowledge to gain any credibility as an activist. I'm not saying knowledge of history and theory isn't important, it is very important, but unless it's combined with a strong ability to perceive the world around you as it is without trying to fit it into a preconceived theoretical framework it becomes an obstacle rather than an aid. Another problem is the lack of emotional intelligence, where people's views are often dismissed with political epithets and they are designated as an enemy because, for example, they might be religious. This is dogmatism, pure and simple, and a form of bigotry. This sort of nerdish factor is also what lies behind our problems with sectarianism. It reminds me a little of hipsters who pour particular scorn on some band or other liked by other hipsters, and I think the psychological process underlying it is identical.

I think this is what Zizek is getting at when he says that to continue Lenin you must not just repeat what he said but alter his ideas based on a perceptive analysis of the socio-economic conditions in your own country, as Lenin did with Marx - and he is completely correct.


Along the lines of what Demogorgon said, I think the hostility to elections is a major problem, and a good example of how theory clouds an accurate assesment of the situation. There are inherent limits to what you can do in government, but I don't think it is impossible to get around them with intelligence and integrity, and with appropriate popular support - whatever you think of Chavez, the situation in Venezuela has shown that the ties between the bourgeoisie and the state are not impossible to sever through legal means. What is impossible, however, is gaining legitimacy amongst the bulk of the population without taking part in elections.
I like this analysis quite a bit, particularly for the comparison to fans of music. Whenever a band that was formally obscure becomes well known, previous fans will always scream "sellout". You get that in leftist circles as well whenever any individual or group is able to get mainstream attention. It doesn't matter one jot if people do that with music, however if you are treating your politics like that then you value your niche status over ever achieving anything.

[NecroCommie]

1) Ideologized imposing of metaphysical values on things and dogmas.
2) Too much feeling and emotion, too little analytical reasoning.
3) Too much sticking to the past.

[Catmatic Leftist]

1. Socialist literature is literally incomprehensible. I have pretty good reading skills, and yet I still have trouble reading Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc. A lot of proletarians don't have access to a decent education, so it would be even harder for them.
2. So much smoke and mirrors. I've been carefully trying to study Marxism and understand basic revolutionary concepts, and I have a hard time finding out what's right for me. I'll agree with NecroCommie that a lack of analytical reasoning is a really bad thing and emotive language contributes to this.
3. At the same time, there seems to be a lack of compassion. I imagined that the Left would be more compassionate seeing as they fight for equality. Turns out that I was wrong.

[ImStalinist]

1.) This thread
2.) Fascists claiming to be leftists
3.) The fact that the Nazis stole the swastika from every great culture!

This is just my rant about what angers me :thumbup1:

[L.A.P.]

1. The Left's hate for pretty much any Middle Class youth. (I by no means, come from the Middle Class and have criticized them too, but damn, they're not all bad, even the ones I know who are political aren't bad. Plus, there really isn't a Middle Class anymore here in the US, everyone's either rich, and was so before, or Middle Class and becoming poor like the rest of us.)

I never realized rampant this was. I'm an upper middle class youth who hopes to go into a career that I guess would put me as intelligesia or "educated working class" but are the Left willing to alienate me from the movement?

[RedSquare]

1. Sectarianism - the segmentation of the left is its biggest weakness. A house divided against itself cannot remain standing. It's almost ridiculous at some times, everyone has their own interpretation but we're all after the same thing generally speaking.

2. Ego, arrogance and disconnection - The majority on the left (and I include myself) fail to make the necessary connections with ordinary people, the people we claim to represent. It's no use having ideology and dogma when part of it isn't relevant or no one outside the circle understands it.

3. Apologists for failures: The tendency of some to defend failed revolutions in the USSR, et al.

[Kotze]

I think there's a sort of "nerd" mentality going on with a lot of the left. I don't mean to say leftists are literally nerdy, but there's a lot of value placed on arcane and obscure knowledge in leftist circles, similar to the way knowledge of a certain type of music, or movies or tv shows, is treated in other "nerd" milieus.I concur with Demogorgon that the comparison with music is very fitting. Many music "nerds" don't actually know anything about how to play instruments and have hilariously wrong ideas about audio reproduction. There's no need to correct wrong wisdom when its only function is that of a shibboleth.

I've seen use of right-wing talking points, and I don't mean right-wing within the socialist set, sprinkled with a bit of jargon ("People brainwashed by bourgeois economics might disagree with [enter bourgeois economic concept here]"), and everybody was cool with that, apparantly.

[DinodudeEpic]

1. The lack of focus on liberty
2. Defending 'Socialist' regimes that aren't socialist at all
3. The lack of focus on debunking right-wingers

[Zanthorus]

I agree with the invariance of the communist program, but it has very little to do with marxism, and I think this is the reason why the bordigists were mistaken.

We may have to agree to disagree here. I think Bordiga was absolutely right to place the emphasis on the invariant doctrine (As was Paul Mattick for that matter).


...there's a lot of value placed on arcane and obscure knowledge in leftist circles, similar to the way knowledge of a certain type of music, or movies or tv shows, is treated in other "nerd" milieus.... It reminds me a little of hipsters who pour particular scorn on some band or other liked by other hipsters,

Have you been stalking me recently?

[Thug Lessons]

1.) First Worldism
2.) First Worldism
3.) First Worldism

[Matty_UK]

Have you been stalking me recently?

No? What makes you say that?

[Zanthorus]

No? What makes you say that?

It's intended as a joke. Note how I only highlighted the bits of your posts that mentioned hipsterish/nerdish activity.

[L.A.P.]

1.) First Worldism
2.) First Worldism
3.) First Worldism

I would say Third-Worldists because of their efforts to divide the working class against each other on grounds of national borders just like any good ol' Fascist would and how they all around just suck but you're all completely irrelevant even in the Left. So um basically, you suck and so does your shitty ideology.

[hatzel]

I would say Third-Worldists because of their efforts to divide the working class against each other on grounds of national borders just like any good ol' Fascist would and how they all around just suck but you're all completely irrelevant even in the Left. So um basically, you suck and so does your shitty ideology.

...but still I prefer Thug's posts :cool:

[Thug Lessons]

I would say Third-Worldists because of their efforts to divide the working class against each other on grounds of national borders just like any good ol' Fascist would and how they all around just suck but you're all completely irrelevant even in the Left. So um basically, you suck and so does your shitty ideology.
Noted. Changing my votes.

1.) First Worldism
2.) Second Worldism
3.) Third Worldism

[Tomhet]

1.) 'Intellectual' elitists who think that because someone like me doesn't understand supercomplex theory, I'm 'dumb' or w/e..
2. Worship of dead dinosaur like figures..
3. Taking sides in century old conflicts..

[DaComm]

1. Having to look at Ronald Reagan at the top of this page.

2. M-Ls claiming Somalia is genuine anarchism in practice

3. Marxist Leninist- Trotskyist debates arising from extremely simple threads

[Kuppo Shakur]

1. Stalinists
2. Trotskyists
3. Liberal shit

And yeah I'm fuckin serious by the way.

[#FF0000]

1) you
2) you
3) YOU

[Rusty Shackleford]

1. Krondstadt

2. Icepicks

3. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact


oh wait, this isnt the 40s!

[North Star]

1. sectarianism
2. idiots supporting people like Assad and Ghadaffi
3. not actually closely investigating what people like Lenin actually wrote and practiced.

[Proukunin]

1. Kruschev
2. Pseudo-Leftists
3. North Korea

[Savage]

1.This Thread
2.This Thread
3.This Thread

[Die Rote Fahne]

Batman
Batman
Spiderman

[Agent Ducky]

People who make lists of things that piss them off about the far left.

[Die Rote Fahne]

People who make lists of things that piss them off about the far left.
Wait...peopel who piss me off ate definetly anarchocapitalist./

[hatzel]

Wait...peopel who piss me off ate definetly anarchocapitalist./

Tasty :)

[Die Rote Fahne]

Tasty :)
<3

[Kamos]

1. People who hate people who make lists of things that piss them off about the far left

2. People who hate people who hate people who make lists of things that piss them off about the far left

3. People who hate people who hate people who hate people who make lists of things that piss them off about the far left

[L.A.P.]

1. Everyone else's list of top 3 things they hate about the far left
2. People who hate the things that they hate about the far left
3. ^^^^^^^

[Rafiq]

1. Utopians

2. Ayn rand followers

3. Fascists.

[Who?]

1. Left communist hipster scum

2. Reactionary petit-bourgeois Trotskyite filth

3. NCM fetishizing Maoists and Marxist-Leninists

[RGacky3]

Douch bags that get "pissed off" at people who are trying to make the world a better place, just because its not the way they would do it.

[graffic]

-Marxist-Leninists
-Arrogance
-Sectarianism
Thats nothing compared to the hate i have for capitalists

[Agent Ducky]

To sum up everything:
Haters.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

1. Hippies
2. Peace & Love
3. Hippies

[tachosomoza]

1.) Trendy, rich college kids who think they know more about oppression than the oppressed.

2.) The government and those who work with or for it.

3.) Stalinists.

[La Comédie Noire]

1. Marxists-Leninists who basically hit on me because I am working class.
2. Anti-civ people who think a crash would be like Fallout 3.
3. People who deal in blood thirsty rhetoric on the internet.

[redSHARP]

1. the lack of hugs
2. the lack of connecting with people
3. fox news (general statement, i was going for right-wing spin machines that make anything slightly helpful to people as "socialist baby eaters who are in league with Al Queda/Hamas/Lex Luthor/maybe Gargamel")

[RGacky3]

1. Hippies
2. Peace & Love
3. Hippies


Really? THATs what you hate? Thats silly, to hate people that have no real effect on you.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

1: Sectarianism (AKA :I hate you Trotskyist/Stalinist filth!)
2: The super-complexity of leftist literature (Why do you have to be so hard to read Capital?! WHY?!)
3: All the pissing and moaning and general dis-unity (haha...the irony is palpable!)

[~Spectre]

1. Authoritarian "marxists".
2. Dismissing any analysis that doesn't include the words "bourgeoisie" and "proletarian" as liberal.
3. The banning of Rosa Lichenstein.


One of the above may not be entirely serious. You decide which.

[Leftsolidarity]

2. The Vegan Marxist


I'm actually friends with him. What do you not like about him?

[Leftsolidarity]

-Marxist-Leninists
-Arrogance
-Sectarianism
Thats nothing compared to the hate i have for capitalists

Oh the irony :lol:

Everyone seems to hate sectarianism but then precedes to continue it.

[hatzel]

Everyone seems to hate sectarianism

Not me. I love it :thumbup1:

Okay, maybe I don't love it, but I definitely don't think it's right to pretend that we're all one big happy family, when we vehemently oppose the methods and intentions of other tendencies, to the extent that I personally consider many of them harmful to the leftist movement, and a great hindrance to further progress. I think that we should attack other ideologies when they are harmful, and I don't feel that where that tendency places itself on the political spectrum should have any influence over whether we attack those ideas we find repulsive, or just ignore them because the holders of these ideas are 'one of us'...

I would much rather have sectarianism than insincere unity, as at least the former challenges harmful ideas.

[Leftsolidarity]

Not me. I love it :thumbup1:

Okay, maybe I don't love it, but I definitely don't think it's right to pretend that we're all one big happy family, when we vehemently oppose the methods and intentions of other tendencies, to the extent that I personally consider many of them harmful to the leftist movement, and a great hindrance to further progress. I think that we should attack other ideologies when they are harmful, and I don't feel that where that tendency places itself on the political spectrum should have any influence over whether we attack those ideas we find repulsive, or just ignore them because the holders of these ideas are 'one of us'...

I would much rather have sectarianism than insincere unity, as at least the former challenges harmful ideas.

We? I don't vehemently oppose the methods and intentions of other tendencies. I find myself comfortable with almost all of them because they are anti-capitalist and seek to give real power to the people. I am comfortable with Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists, anarchists, plain Marxists,etc. Though I might not completely agree with all of them and can see their faults I am not going to dismiss or fight against them. We should unite with other comrades even if they are of a different tendency because seperate we are weak but together we have a chance.

Really what is the real point of seperating each other over petty distinctions that don't even make a difference at the moment? None, maybe it makes you feel 'ideologically pure' or something but sectarianism is the true harmful idea. You can be in your little corner and think to yourself that you are so much better than other leftists or you can be a big boy and learn to get over each others' differences and work together.

[hatzel]

We?

Unfortunately the English language is somewhat inadequate, in as much as (unlike some other languages) it doesn't distinguish between an 'inclusive' we (that is to say, you and I) and an 'exclusive' we (that is to say, they and I), and, as such, I find all of these 'we? You ain't talking for me, bro!' points mundane, as long as one for some reason assumes that they must by necessity be included in the 'we' spoken by others.


I don't vehemently oppose the methods and intentions of other tendenciesEnglish also suffers from its ambiguity in the meaning of the word 'when', which can mean (amongst other things) both 'at that time that such occurs' and 'in the event that such occurs'; the latter is largely analogous to 'if', much like the German 'wenn'. The former suggests that 'when' suggests a definite statement, whilst the latter is conditional.


We should unite with other comrades even if they are of a different tendency because seperate we are weak but together we have a chance.Interesting and oft-repeated theory, though it relies on the assumption that it is the tendency itself which carries society forwards, with the people merely pulled along with the current. If we are to assume that the will and action of the people is, in fact, the driving force for social development, with the revolutionary movement a mere manifestation of the popular will, then all such talk of distinction of tendencies can be relegated to the level of irrelevance, with people merely acting as they see fit. This is without any talk of which tendencies forward a viable proposition, which can be seen to match with the will of the people and the nature of society at a given point in time. As it happens, any complete tendency promising to offer all of the above in all societies at all times isn't worth the paper it's written it; it should be much better cut to shreds, so that only those section applicable to a given situation can be called upon, as and when they are required. Such an approach questions the very need to adhere to a 'tendency' above and beyond one's own judgement.


Really what is the real point of seperating each other over petty distinctions that don't even make a difference at the moment?You may consider ideas and actions which cause great harm to the socialist movement to be 'petty distinctions', and you may question what difference they make. You may in fact have thought to remember that the statement in question was concerning a situation in which one tendency may make proclamations or plot actions which I personally consider detrimental to the socialist movement. This may take the form of an essay written, or a whole insurrectionary act planned. If I consider this statement, idea or course of action to be fundamentally flawed, or detrimental to the progress of the socialist movement - that is to say, if they contradict my own understanding - I am more than comfortable to criticise them, and will not hold back from criticism because the organisation or individual forwarding these ideas happens to call themselves a socialist.


You can be in your little corner and think to yourself that you are so much better than other leftists or you can be a big boy and learn to get over each others' differences and work together.If I were forced to choose between sitting in a corner by myself and participating in something that I explicitly considered detrimental to the socialist movement (that being the topic of discussion here), I admit I would prefer to sit in the corner. The latter option would seem counterproductive, and questions the use of having individual ideas in the first place, if one is only to follow the crowd when they demand it of you.

Still, you seem to have cast this into the realm of tendency vs. tendency, as if individuals don't think for themselves, and instead constitute monotonous blocks which must be either left alone or attacked in their entirety. As it happens, a tendency is actually made up of a variety of different ideas which, though interwoven, can be attacked in isolation. And, if one considers these ideas harmful, they should be attacked. It's a fundamental part of being a free-thinker, to happily criticise ideas which contradict one's own, irrespective of whence they come. None of this precludes cooperation with those of other tendencies on matters of mutual benefit, that is to say, matters that don't run counter to my better judgement. Any socialist, though, who is willing to participate in actions they consider detrimental to the socialist movement, just because other socialists are doing so, really needs to reassess their commitment to their own ideas...

EDIT: The above, however, is distinct from sectarianism, as sectarianism suggests that one is more interested in attacking fellow socialists than the common enemy. I, instead, suggested that one should not ignore or overlook serious discrepancies between tendencies, to the extent that one accepts or even supports ideas or actions one considers detrimental to the socialist movement, in the name of anti-sectarianism. Hence I said "I would much rather have sectarianism than insincere unity," but let's not get stuck in some binary world where they are the only two options.

[Aspiring Humanist]

1.) The fact that everyone talks about revolution but never does anything remotely revolutionary

2.) The fact that everyone talks about revolution but never does anything remotely revolutionary

3.) The fact that everyone talks about revolution but never does anything remotely revolutionary

(I'm guilty of this myself)

[Rusty Shackleford]

Ok, i have 3 that are post-WWII

1: Sino Soviet split and soviet chauvanism

2: Communists being baited by liberals into becoming more moderate

3: Jim Jones

[progressive_lefty]

1. Sectarian problems
2. Almost open hostility towards a united left
3. Prone to violence not out of defense - but out of ego

[Nolan]

k, 3 more:

1. Saturation of much of the self-identified revolutionary left with liberal ideology. They put the same pigs on the same pedestals.

2. Saturation of much of the left with third positionist tendencies, the other side of #1 that never gets talked about. Often these people are the ones obsessed with #1.

3. The blaming of non-existent tendencies for problems, chiefly "stalinism."

[LancashireLenin]

1. The focus on combating redundant reactionary ideologies. We don't need to spend so much time arguing against 'anarcho-capitalism' or followers of Ayn Rand- they are irrelevant and doomed to irrelevancy by their own contradictions. Let's get to critiquing 'actually-existing capitalism'.

2. The idea you have to find your own 'sect'. 'Do you follow the 'rules' of Hoxhaist-Third-Worldist-Revolutionary-Syndicalism to the letter? No? Then you're no comrade of mine!' It isn't helpful to identify a chosen few who you think are 'right' and then align with them totally, Marxism should be about constant critique and yes, even comradely disagreement (which doesn't mean calling anyone a 'social Fascist' without due cause). All the different 'isms' seem to me to be about fighting old battles against other socialists. Take inspiration not from a few canon saints but from everywhere you can get it.

3. Its conservatism. The fact that much of the Left doesn't just take inspiration from the past, but lives in the past. The fact that a lot of the Leftist structures that have developed within capitalism serve to bolster it (key example being the Communist Party and Communist-aligned trade unions in France during 1968).

[Pretty Flaco]

Dogmatism and focusing on the state instead of the people.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Well, for one, there are so many parties. Some become more interested in care-taking their organization by selling poorly designed papers and leaflets than on actually attracting people to socialist politics.

To actually have a revolutionary party you need to have a base that would want to join it in the first place. It can only organically arise out of the working class and it's allies. The best way to build that base is to organize people and radical forces into partisan cores during moments of crises in capitalism. For example, a lot of advanced working class activism has broke out in immigrant communities. A lot of it is in unions and in worker centers. Hastening a resurgence of revolutionary politics outside of those traditional formations of resistance would definitely help build a future party. It's a process, not an event.

Another problem is that a lot of militant energies are misled under liberal leadership. You can see this in how the already weak anti-war movement demobilized after lobbying to put Democrats in Congress and in the White House, who, in turn, voted for more defense appropriations and for the escalation of U.S. imperialism in Afghanistan. "Why a general strike hasn't happened yet..." on Libcom is a great article by IWW member Juan Conatz that demonstrates (by contemporary example) how the public sector rank-in-file was misguided by Democratic Party efforts in Wisconsin.

[Demogorgon]

1. The focus on combating redundant reactionary ideologies. We don't need to spend so much time arguing against 'anarcho-capitalism' or followers of Ayn Rand- they are irrelevant and doomed to irrelevancy by their own contradictions. Let's get to critiquing 'actually-existing capitalism'.

I don't think this is actually that big a problem. I say this as perhaps the single most guilty person on the entire board of attacking anarcho-capitalism and whatnot...

It isn't a problem because it is actually something confined more to the message board than anything else. You get objectivists and anarcho-capitalists on the internet so those of us who like arguing inevitably go after them a lot, but it doesn't carry over into real life. The real problem is more an obsession with "fascism" which involves a failure to recognise that the far right has taken a new form and is unlikely to go marching in jack boots again.

I agree with your other two points though.

[Skooma Addict]

Refusal to accept modern economic theory.

[Leftsolidarity]

Refusal to accept modern economic theory.

What?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Refusal to accept modern economic theory.
if you mean bourgeois economics, its older than scientific socialist economics.

[Skooma Addict]

What?

Refusal to accept modern economics.


if you mean bourgeois economics, its older than scientific socialist economics.

there is no such thing as bourgeois economics.

[Leftsolidarity]

Refusal to accept modern economics.



there is no such thing as bourgeois economics.


All i read was "durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrr:blink:"

[ImStalinist]

1.) How reality is
2.) Capitalism/Fascism
3.) The fact I can't think of much other things to say to pisses me off.:D

[Tim Finnegan]

1 - Placing party-building over movement-building.
2 - Making a fetish of certain historical organisations, states, or events.
3 - Ideological conservatism.

[RGacky3]

Skooma .... Milton Freedman, Hayak and so on ARE DEAD ECONOMISTS, literally and figuratively, the ones people pay attention to are Stiglitz and Krugman and Reich and so on, Keynsians, beyond that you have Marxists like Richard Wolff that are putting forward real analysis and solutions.

The only people that still believe in Market fundementalism are the ones that are explicitly paid to do so, no serious economist still believes in that.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Refusal to accept modern economics.



there is no such thing as bourgeois economics.


http://www.thwink.org/sustain/deadlock/E2_WealthOfNations.jpg

[Red And Black Sabot]

As far as my geographic area is concerned...

1. Reformism, activism, and BS progressive "movement building" coupled with a serious lack of direct action or resonating confrontation. Around here, the left is stuck caring way to much what progressives and democrats think of them. Fuck it. They aren't are allies. I'm ready to drop the ever so authoritarian quantity over quality instead of the other way around complete with peace marshals, movement self policing, activist bull shit. I'm bored with being on my best most ineffectual behavior.

2. armchair critics / academic chauvinism / intelectual elitism.
All of which should probably just read arrogance. (Here's to the rich college kids who think they know more about oppression than the oppressed. Shit Talk Vs. Action or organizing)

3. dogma - As in... a lot of leftists are stuck in outmoded forms of resistance yet dismissive of anything but... Plus the rest who are stuck or unwilling to look beyond identity politics. The 60s are over.

[Skooma Addict]

All i read was "durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrr:blink:"

Haha. Yea, ideological blinders will have that effect.

[Leftsolidarity]

Haha. Yea, ideological blinders will have that effect.

Just wondering, why are you on this site if you are not a leftist?

[Skooma Addict]

Just wondering, why are you on this site if you are not a leftist?

I am on here to let people like you know there are normal people in the world who aren't leftist. Idk if you can comprehend that, so it might just register as "drrrrrrr" to you.

[Leftsolidarity]

I am on here to let people like you know there are normal people in the world who aren't leftist. Idk if you can comprehend that, so it might just register as "drrrrrrr" to you.

There are normal people who are and aren't leftists. There are normal people of almost any affialation. This is the "Home of the revolutionary left" where leftists come to talk. All you being on here does is divert conversation to the fact that you obviously have nothing better to do with your time than troll on a forum that you don't agree with.

[Skooma Addict]

There are normal people who are and aren't leftists. There are normal people of almost any affialation. This is the "Home of the revolutionary left" where leftists come to talk. All you being on here does is divert conversation to the fact that you obviously have nothing better to do with your time than troll on a forum that you don't agree with.

Lol. Well this is the Opposing Ideologies forum, and if it weren't for me there would be nobody with an actual genuine opposing ideology. I also have 10 times as many posts as you, so if I were a troll I would have been banned a long long time ago. But yes, I don't really have anything better to do with my time. something right.

[Property Is Robbery]

I should start by stopping being so bitter about what the USSR did to Catalonia.
I agree but don't forget the Ukrainian Free Territory ;)

[WeAreReborn]

I am on here to let people like you know there are normal people in the world who aren't leftist. Idk if you can comprehend that, so it might just register as "drrrrrrr" to you.
Wait! Hold on a second. Are you honestly saying there are non-leftists in the world? Wtf??!! I thought the world was Communist and we purged all the right wing elements out already.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Skooma has a right to be here. Yeah he/she isnt of the left persuasion which is why he/she was restricted.

if anything it helps with debate and so what for people who are genuinely interested in ideological debate with people they vehemently oppose.

anyways. this is the function of OI. a place for people who want to be here but arent communists in any degree.

[Leftsolidarity]

Skooma has a right to be here. Yeah he/she isnt of the left persuasion which is why he/she was restricted.

if anything it helps with debate and so what for people who are genuinely interested in ideological debate with people they vehemently oppose.

anyways. this is the function of OI. a place for people who want to be here but arent communists in any degree.

Never said that Skooma doesn't, I was just wondering why he/she is here.

[RGacky3]

There are much less active political people on the right (worldwide) than the are on the left, but there IS much more money worldwide on the right, if you travel around you'll meet very very few propertarians, or people that believe in capitalism, but you'll meet many socialists.

Problem is the people with money benefit from capitalism so they support it, whether or not they actually believe it is the best system, its hard to tell.

[Jimmie Higgins]

1. Sectarianism (and a sort of inwardness that is connected)
2. Lack of sustained organizational infrastructure - US radical history is full of booms and declines with a lot of demoralization and destruction or cooperation of organizations in-between and so each wave of radicalism in the US is slow to learn from the one before it and has to rebuild organizations, meeting spaces, media, every generation or two.
3. Pessimism

[ZrianKobani]

1) Sectarianism

2) Regime worship (defending EVERYTHING involving Cuba, DPRK, PRC, USSR, etc.)

3) Blood lust (the conditions for armed struggle aren't in place and most of us wouldn't know how to be involved if it happened, reformism sucks but it's not the anti-Christ).

[Agent Ducky]

1) Sectarianism

2) Regime worship (defending EVERYTHING involving Cuba, DPRK, PRC, USSR, etc.)

3) Blood lust (the conditions for armed struggle aren't in place and most of us wouldn't know how to be involved if it happened, reformism sucks but it's not the anti-Christ).

I love how out of all the regimes, Cuba is the only one that kept a nice short name without all the ridiculous titles. It's not the Glorious Free Democratic People's Republic of Cuba. It's just Cuba, dammit. It's so hard to take DPRK and PRC seriously with this stuff.

Ok, that's part of my list. Countries that call themselves "Socialist" that embellish their country with a bunch of titles. "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya"..... Wtf, Khadaffi?

[Leftsolidarity]

I love how out of all the regimes, Cuba is the only one that kept a nice short name without all the ridiculous titles. It's not the Glorious Free Democratic People's Republic of Cuba. It's just Cuba, dammit. It's so hard to take DPRK and PRC seriously with this stuff.

Ok, that's part of my list. Countries that call themselves "Socialist" that embellish their country with a bunch of titles. "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya"..... Wtf, Khadaffi?

Hahaha I was just having a conversation about that earlier. It really is hard to take people seriously when they do that stuff.

[Agent Ducky]

Hahaha I was just having a conversation about that earlier. It really is hard to take people seriously when they do that stuff.

Another thing that's holding back the left. Maoist Rebel News. That guy is freaking hilarious.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Another thing that's holding back the left. Maoist Rebel News. That guy is freaking hilarious.

Hate that guy...so annoying.

[#FF0000]

1) Electoralism

2) Soviet Role Play Societies

3) That Blood Lust everyone talks about

[Leftsolidarity]

Another thing that's holding back the left. Maoist Rebel News. That guy is freaking hilarious.

I love his outfits though.

[ZrianKobani]

Another thing that's holding back the left. Maoist Rebel News. That guy is freaking hilarious.

Is it just me or does he look like he's always about to fall asleep? He has like the drowsiest eyes in the world.

[Agent Ducky]

Is it just me or does he look like he's always about to fall asleep? He has like the drowsiest eyes in the world.

I know, right? I bet if you asked him he'd give some answer like "true revolutionaries need no sleep" or something along those lines but with a straight face and being dead serious. His outfits make me laugh too. Quoting someone "He looks like he just waged warfare at the local mall." I don't know how he expects to be taken seriously.

[Red_Struggle]

1) Revleft
2) Apologists/reformists calling themselves Marxists
3) Sectarianism
4) Immaturity and "Fuck you, Dad" politics and teen angst. Fer serious.

[ComradeMan]

1) Revleft
2) Apologists/reformists calling themselves Marxists
3) Sectarianism
4) Immaturity and "Fuck you, Dad" politics and teen angst. Fer serious.

1- :lol:

2- bookfairs
3- people talking about the 1970s all the time
4- students who are zealous leftists until they get jobs in law firms etc :rolleyes:

[hatzel]

bookfairs

B-b-but where else are we going to get books? :crying:

[Ingraham Effingham]

1. division
2. hypocrisy/posers
3. living in the past

[Kotze]

1) ElectoralismThis would be immediately detected as the inexcusable regression in outlook towards idealism that it is by the always alerted mind of anybody who went through a serious political and historical and economical education in the Soviet Union!
2) Soviet Role Play SocietiesThese nerds should be sent to labour camp and made into dog food!
3) That Blood Lust everyone talks aboutWe should focus more on peaceful means, like elections!


Quoting someone "He looks like he just waged warfare at the local mall." I don't know how he expects to be taken seriously.Send him commie specs, that will make him cool and sexaayyy :P

[Agent Ducky]

Send him commie specs, that will make him cool and sexaayyy :P
:laugh:
be like "I SENT YOU THESE GLASSES CUZ UR VIDEOS ARE AWESOME AND YOU SHOULD WEAR THEM IN ALL YOUR VIDEOS OR SOMETHING!" pretend to be a fangirl and shit. that would be funny.

[Drosophila]

1) Thought that anyone who's not them is a reactionary

2) Bullshit propaganda

3) The thought that only violence can solve the world's problems

[ZrianKobani]

His outfits make me laugh too. Quoting someone "He looks like he just waged warfare at the local mall." I don't know how he expects to be taken seriously. Not gonna lie, I used to have a Mao styled army cap when I was in high school and there were days that I'd wear a tan button-down with the Little Red Book in my back pocket. All I'll say is no one in your world history class will take your criticism of how your text-book presents the Bolsheviks when you look like you're in costume :glare:

[The_Outernationalist]

1. anarchists who have authoritarian tendencies and behave like what the stereotype of Stalin is, yet ironically hate Stalin

2. most form of identity politics leftism

3. people who immediately accuse you of being reactionary/puritan/misogynist/stalinist/benefactor of white privileged because you disagree with their pathetic interpretation of sociology

[The_Outernationalist]

I love how out of all the regimes, Cuba is the only one that kept a nice short name without all the ridiculous titles. It's not the Glorious Free Democratic People's Republic of Cuba. It's just Cuba, dammit. It's so hard to take DPRK and PRC seriously with this stuff.


Even the anthem, flag, and coat of arms all pre-date the 1959 Revolution.

[Battlecat]

1. Secterianism

2. Our hatred, yet perpetuation of secterianism

3. Our lack of any real ideological advancement since the sixties

4 ???

5. Profit

[Agent Ducky]

5. Profit

Wrong! Profit is part of capitalism. You're obviously a reactionary!

[ComradeMan]

B-b-but where else are we going to get books? :crying:

I mean those bookfairs with old and tatty books, where the whole place smells of herbal tea and incense and people seem to be obsessed by talking about Almodóvar films.... :unsure:

[hatzel]

I feel that the world would be changed forever if only everybody would watch Todo sobre mi madre :)

[ComradeMan]

I feel that the world would be changed forever if only everybody would watch Todo sobre mi madre :)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
:lol:

[Reznov]

1) Using past tendencies created a long time ago as the only correct dogma and becoming stiff in believing even when facing 21st century unique situations and problems.

2) Refer to 1 really

3) Refer to 1 really

[Robespierre Richard]

Obviously:

1) Anarchism
2) Trotskyism
3) Revisionism

On the other hand as far as things that hold it back I'd say:

1) Ideology
2) Politics
3) History

I'd write explanations but they would take a lot of words to define and I'm lazy.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

Even the anthem, flag, and coat of arms all pre-date the 1959 Revolution.

El Himno de Bayamo. I'm directly related to Perucho Figueredo through his daughter, Candelaria Figueredo. Oh the ironies of history.

Anyway, my list:

1) Splitters
2) The group I split from
3) The group they split from

[Leftsolidarity]

Anyway, my list:

1) Splitters
2) The group I split from
3) The group they split from

I lol'd

[ZombieRothbard]

My critique of your movement:

1. Anti-Revisionism/Fixation on the Communist Revolution in Russia.

2. Advocating anti-imperialism, self-determination and anti-discrimination while simultaneously arbitrarily grouping people into classes, advocating widespread warfare/violent revolution, and being intolerant towards other economic systems.

3. A seeming lack of importance placed on economic theory, where people contrive of how they believe an economic system SHOULD operate, rather than how it WOULD operate (something I believe mutualists have solved for you).

4. The anarchists among you seem to have the most convincing arguments for socialism. The problem is that you seem to put too much of an emphasis on anti-capitalism instead of anti-statism. So much so that many of the left-wing anarchists I have encountered support the welfare state and other statist measures. If you truly believe that capitalism cannot function without the state, than logic would dictate that you would be anti-state rather than anti-capitalist. If the state has birthed this vile economic system, than you should focus on destroying the root, which means you should view anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists more favorably, since they are also ardent anti-statists.

[Leftsolidarity]

If the state has birthed this vile economic system, than you should focus on destroying the root, which means you should view anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists more favorably, since they are also ardent anti-statists.

The state did not birth it. The state was birthed from it.

[Tim Finnegan]

Advocating anti-imperialism, self-determination and anti-discrimination while simultaneously arbitrarily grouping people into classes...
Hardly arbitrary, if you have the slightest acquittance with Marxist thought.


...advocating widespread warfare/violent revolution...And how do you think that capitalism emerged, exactly? Where the absolute despots of Europe merely hugged into submission? Did the English burghers win Charles II over with cake and a nice card? Was the British monarchy expelled from the future United States with a sympathetically yet firmly worded note?

Violence is necessary when the forces of reaction make it necessary. If they were to simply roll over and die, then we would all be better for it, but monsters rarely die so easily.


...and being intolerant towards other economic systems.Are you suggesting that you, oh noble anarcho-fellah, would "tolerate" slavery, serfdom, or a tributary despotism? "Tolerance" is something that need only be extended to the worthy, not to that which is considered worthy simply by its beneficiaries and their attendants.

[DiaMat86]

Rosa Lichtenstein is banned? Nice!

[ZrianKobani]

Using past tendencies created a long time ago as the only correct dogma and becoming stiff in believing even when facing 21st century unique situations and problems.

"Now, there are two different attitudes towards learning from others. One is the dogmatic attitude of transplanting everything, whether or not it is suited to our conditions. This is no good. The other attitude is to use our heads and learn those things that suit our conditions, that is, to absorb whatever experience is useful to us. That is the attitude we should adopt."
~Mao Zedong, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People (February 27, 1957)

[ZrianKobani]

"Tolerance" is something that need only be extended to the worthy Who, then, determines worth?

[#FF0000]

1) Thought that anyone who's not them is a reactionary

3) The thought that only violence can solve the world's problems

Sounds like you don't have any idea of what leftists actually believe.

[RGacky3]

2. Advocating anti-imperialism, self-determination and anti-discrimination while simultaneously arbitrarily grouping people into classes, advocating widespread warfare/violent revolution, and being intolerant towards other economic systems.


We don't do that, Capitalism does that.


3. A seeming lack of importance placed on economic theory, where people contrive of how they believe an economic system SHOULD operate, rather than how it WOULD operate (something I believe mutualists have solved for you).


You gotta talk to me more, all I do is economic thoery, and economic analysis.


The problem is that you seem to put too much of an emphasis on anti-capitalism instead of anti-statism. So much so that many of the left-wing anarchists I have encountered support the welfare state and other statist measures. If you truly believe that capitalism cannot function without the state, than logic would dictate that you would be anti-state rather than anti-capitalist. If the state has birthed this vile economic system, than you should focus on destroying the root, which means you should view anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists more favorably, since they are also ardent anti-statists.

Its a good point, but its more complicated and not always that way around. For example the uprising in San Salvador Atenco was a shining moment for anrchists and very proud, but guess what it was, it was street merchants, i.e. small buisiness men fighting against the state banning street selling (in order to protect Corporate super markets).

So Technically in this sense we were protecting the little "capitalist" against the state (BTW where were the libertarians then? No where to be found, they only pop up when the super rich or corporations get attacked or when poor people get some support, just showing libertarians are full of shit).

Whereas in other aspects such as government healthcare as opposed to corporate healthcare many of us go for the government healthcare.

What we are against is centralized power, what we are for is self-determination, people power and freedom, so its more complicated then just being ALWAYS anti-state or ALWAYS anti-market in every situation, we are ultimately against both, because both are unjust forms of power.

[The_Outernationalist]

Sounds like you don't have any idea of what leftists actually believe.

To be honest, I've seen alot of the "anyone who is not with us is against us", specifically, amongst anarchists, trotskyists, and some hardline staliinists

[hatzel]

Oh, I have a new one, I have a new one:

Anybody who ever refers to anybody else as a 'degenerate' :)

[ComradeMan]

Oh, I have a new one, I have a new one:

Anybody who ever refers to anybody else as a 'degenerate' :)

What about decadent?

[Queercommie Girl]

1) Sectarianism.
2) Stalinism.
3) Arrogance.

Three things that pisses me off:

1) Male chauvinism; (including sexism/homophobia/transphobia and an over-emphasis on "macho-ness". I don't mind "macho-ness" per se as long as it does not prejudice against others)

2) Dogmatism; (those who treat Marxism like a fundamentalist Abrahamic religion and take every single word of Marx and Engels as the infallible word of God. They fail to apply the scientific method to Marxist politics and realise that Marxism must move forward with the times or it's dead)

3) Moral nihilism. (I'm an atheist and I believe morality is ultimately a social construction rather than something metaphysical. But I don't like the fact that some people on the far-left are completely amoral. Morality may be a human construction, but it still has an objective social reality. I prefer what Che said, that revolutionaries should be guided by a sense of justice and love. Of course, socialist morality is qualitatively different from capitalist morality, as Trotsky pointed out in his Our Morals and Theirs)

[MarxSchmarx]

3) Moral nihilism. (I'm an atheist and I believe morality is ultimately a social construction rather than something metaphysical. But I don't like the fact that some people on the far-left are completely amoral. Morality may be a human construction, but it still has an objective social reality. I prefer what Che said, that revolutionaries should be guided by a sense of justice and love. Of course, socialist morality is qualitatively different from capitalist morality, as Trotsky pointed out in his Our Morals and Theirs)

I agree. it's useful for the left to distinguish between moral relativism and moral nihilism (although some might equate the two).

One related problem on the left is that I suspect a lot of us really don't share a common morality. This is somewhat strange, given that we agree on 99% of what's messed up with capitalism, and we also tend to agree completely on why things like bombing civilian villages, union busting, or racist oppression are wrong. For some leftists these are perhaps nothing more than convenient talking points to galvanize other people to join their sects. But for other leftists, e.g. those that favored the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia or more controversially Stalinist purges, they don't seem to have a moral sensibility in common with anarchists or mainstream Trotskyist groups. Stalinists and their successors are probably low-hanging fruit, but given the eagerness with which several leftist groups defend the likes of the DPRK or Iran, I really wonder whether they share a "socialist morality" and aren't just using the talk of anti-imperialism and human rights and the like as a convenient recruiting tool.

Even given the disparate party's views, it's a fools errand to try to resolve why a common leftist morality leads to such radically different conclusion, at least among ourselves at this stage. More likely than not, it would be resolved as different groups add numbers, rather than the force of an ethical argument.

[Dimitri Molotov]

1. Ignorance.

2. Sectarianism and lack of Leftist Unity.

3. Apathy of everyone else.

[ComradeMan]

It seems like we are pissed off about a lot of things! :lol:

[hatzel]

It seems like we are pissed off about a lot of things! :lol:

I suggest somebody go through and collate all our hates into one big long list of hates, and then we can...I don't know...work to change it? :confused:

[Leftsolidarity]

I suggest somebody go through and collate all our hates into one big long list of hates, and then we can...I don't know...work to change it? :confused:

That's like 9 pages though :(

[ComradeMan]

That's like 9 pages though :(

Mega face palm!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like- we can change the world if it's only a page long!!! :lol:

[Rooster]

I suggest somebody go through and collate all our hates into one big long list of hates, and then we can...I don't know...work to change it? :confused:

Top three, give or take:

1. Stalinism
2. Sectarianism
3. Dogmatism

It was close between the first two.

[Queercommie Girl]

One related problem on the left is that I suspect a lot of us really don't share a common morality.


I don't think people will ever share the same morality. Socialism is not a religion, it does not require people to follow some kind of narrow creed in the moral sense. As long as people recognise the importance of ethics to some extent, there will always be room for discussion and debate, albeit based on some common principal assumptions which most socialists would agree with.



This is somewhat strange, given that we agree on 99% of what's messed up with capitalism, and we also tend to agree completely on why things like bombing civilian villages, union busting, or racist oppression are wrong.


But there are still many points on which socialists may disagree. Many socialists even today still disagree with LGBT politics, and many agree only in name but disagree deep down. There are also a lot of disagreements on issues like drugs, sex work, gender roles etc.

[ColonelCossack]

1:Sectarianism
2:sectarianism
3:SecTarIanIsm
3.5: Psuedo-leftists

[ComradeMan]

1:Sectarianism
2:sectarianism
3:SecTarIanIsm
3.5: Psuedo-leftists

People who can't spell! (Sorry Gacky!)

Pseudo.... FFS

:lol:

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Top three, give or take:

1. Stalinism
2. Sectarianism
3. Dogmatism

It was close between the first two.

1. People that list -ism and then say they hate sectarianism

[Zealot]

1. Sectarianism
2. Laziness
3. Arrogance

[Tim Finnegan]

1. People that list -ism and then say they hate sectarianism
Of curse, that rather assumes that you consider Stalinists to constitute a group who can be meaningfully considered left-wing... http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/mischief.gif

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Of curse, that rather assumes that you consider Stalinists to constitute a group who can be meaningfully considered left-wing... http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/mischief.gif

I don't it's all that relevant what you think of them (inasmuch as "Stalinism" exists at all outside of sectarian slander). I mean, I hate all those vegan groups and life-stylists, but I don't think their reprehensible nature prevents them from being left-wing. I think it's more that you want to excuse your sectarian ways (not to imply the 'Stalinists' tankies are any better when they start rambling about ice picks hither and thither).

[Queercommie Girl]

Of curse, that rather assumes that you consider Stalinists to constitute a group who can be meaningfully considered left-wing... http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/mischief.gif

I am very critical of "Stalinism" in many ways, but I don't see the point of constantly labelling "Stalinism" as some kind of "bogeyman" or "devil" in the socialist camp in a sectarian manner.

Lack of worker's democracy? Blame Stalinism...
Lack of environmental concerns? Blame Stalinism...
Lack of rights for national minorities? Blame Stalinism...
Lack of LGBT rights? Blame Stalinism...

:rolleyes:

In all fairness, I think if things are evaluated completely objectively, then the legacy of Stalin should not be completely written-off.

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't it's all that relevant what you think of them (inasmuch as "Stalinism" exists at all outside of sectarian slander). I mean, I hate all those vegan groups and life-stylists, but I don't think their reprehensible nature prevents them from being left-wing. I think it's more that you want to excuse your sectarian ways (not to imply the 'Stalinists' tankies are any better when they start rambling about ice picks hither and thither).
Well, personally, I consider "the left", in the sense used here, to represent the working class organised as a class, while Marixsm-Leninism represented the Soviet and other nomenklaturas organised as a class, thus rendering them, in practice, left of capital. If you're willing to extend be even the barest credit as a thinking ape, goes beyond mere "sectarian slander", regardless of whether you actually agree with it or not.


I am very critical of "Stalinism" in many ways, but I don't see the point of constantly labelling "Stalinism" as some kind of "bogeyman" or "devil" in the socialist camp in a sectarian manner.

Lack of worker's democracy? Blame Stalinism...
Lack of environmental concerns? Blame Stalinism...
Lack of rights for national minorities? Blame Stalinism...
Lack of LGBT rights? Blame Stalinism...

:rolleyes:

In all fairness, I think if things are evaluated completely objectively, then the legacy of Stalin should not be completely written-off.
In the sense that the legacy of Atlee or Roosevelt may not be completely written off by reformism groups, perhaps, but I don't think that there is any wisdom at all in incorporating the left of capital into the recognised political lineage of the revolutionary left, regardless of the colour of their flag.

[The Teacher]

Responding to the original post...

1. Elitism. The "more leftist than thou" attitude. If it isn't 100% pure revolution as told by X then it can't be supported. This leads to a refusal to work with the dreaded liberals (or even other leftists most of the time).
2. Smug college kids who talk all day about liberating the working class but who don't actually know any working people.
3. Defending monsters of history like Stalin or Pol Pot.

[ComradeMan]

Responding to the original post...

1. Elitism. The "more leftist than thou" attitude. If it isn't 100% pure revolution as told by X then it can't be supported. This leads to a refusal to work with the dreaded liberals (or even other leftists most of the time).
2. Smug college kids who talk all day about liberating the working class but who don't actually know any working people.
3. Defending monsters of history like Stalin or Pol Pot.

...and you can find all of that in one form or another at RevLeft! Have fun here! :lol:

;)

[Hiero]

Do people really encounter such problems around Stalinism? If you have a conversation with a non-converted leftist or non-aligned member from the dominated classes do you honestly expect to find the answet to "Why have you not become a left-wing warrior" "oh it is because of all the Stalinism?" No one in mainstream Western society talks about Stalin.

The first time I head any debate around Stalin was when entering the tiny enlace of the "left".

That is the ultimate thing holding back the left, the inability to relate political left wing theory to everyday lived experiences. There needs to be more organic struggle around real issues.

[Queercommie Girl]

That is the ultimate thing holding back the left, the inability to relate political left wing theory to everyday lived experiences. There needs to be more organic struggle around real issues.


Agree. Ultimately abstract dogmatism and sectarianism are linked.

[Leftsolidarity]

Do people really encounter such problems around Stalinism? If you have a conversation with a non-converted leftist or non-aligned member from the dominated classes do you honestly expect to find the answet to "Why have you not become a left-wing warrior" "oh it is because of all the Stalinism?" No one in mainstream Western society talks about Stalin.

The first time I head any debate around Stalin was when entering the tiny enlace of the "left".

That is the ultimate thing holding back the left, the inability to relate political left wing theory to everyday lived experiences. There needs to be more organic struggle around real issues.

I agree with you but I actually do get thrown the Stalin bullshit on a pretty regular basis when people find out I'm a communist or if I'm handing literature out on the street. People seem to just think Communism=Stalin sometimes which gets very annoying.

[Omsk]

I suggest the moderators close this thread,i am certain nothing of value will be lost.And i am sure a over-the-top flame war will erupt.

[khad]

1. You
2. You
3. Yes, you

You are the reason why we can't have threads like this.

Thread Closed.