Why I'm Not A Leftist

[The Teacher]

I came to this forum for two reasons; to learn more about the fringe left and ask questions to judge how much my own views line up with leftism and second, well, right wingers piss me off.

I was initially excited, for I am an ardent anti-fascist and a very left leaning person in general. But there are a few things that I just can't be associated with and, for these reasons, I will be visiting this part of the net very infrequently, if at all. In case you are interested (many of you probably aren't) I would like to quickly talk about my reasons for rejecting leftism as a whole.

1. The "more left than thou" attitude. Got enough of that at Antioch.

2. Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression.

3. Refusal to participate in elections. What I've heard a lot about on this site is "we fight tooth and nail for reform, but its stupid and pointless" no one fights tooth and nail for something that they think is useless.

4. No concern for actual working class people. Per above, living wage laws healthcare and education are not stupid. They actually help working families in the here and now. If the far left actually cared about "workers" then this would be the first and foremost mission. If the left cared about the working class, we would support you. You don't care about us, so we say screw it, we'll do it ourselves.

5. Stalism. Seriously? How are these people different from neo-nazis? Worshiping a mass murderer? Not only disgusting but completely counter productive.

6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.
Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?

7. Per 5, far too many people have a flippant attitude in regards to violence. These people probably haven't witnessed real violence and/or don't have anyone the care about.

8. No respect for individual rights. If they don't agree with us then they can hit the road (or the firing squad, per 5 and 7). Our way or nothing.

9. Per above, group think, lack of constructive criticism, and a complete lack of respect for dissenting opinions. What if your way of thinking isn't the only one? Maybe leftism is wrong? I don't really think so but what if? Can we afford to avoid even discussing it?

10. Knee jerk reaction to anything that isn't ultra-double plus leftist as being reactionary, bussie, fascist, or (shudder) liberal.

11. Support for every murdering dictator who opposes "the west"

That being said I've met some great people on this forum and witnessed some interesting debates. Best wishes to everyone.

[Kotze]

I don't see how any of these things you mention here make you a non-leftist. All I see is that you aren't an orthodox Marxist-Leninist and you probably won't buy a Che shirt from the RevLeft store. If you want a discussion without Stalin fans, there is libcom.org, which is also full of pseudo-intellectual obscurantists though, and democraticunderground.com, which is a forum for Americans who talk about supporting the Democrats and being disappointed with them and supporting them again, they are basically Scandinavians in the closet, but they actually have a couple of far-left posters.

[Franz Fanonipants]

antioch owned fool

e: stalin owned too fool gtfo

[Ocean Seal]

1. The "more left than thou" attitude. Got enough of that at Antioch.
That's actually not that prevalent here. Rarely do people go for it, and when they do they're rather often mocked.



2. Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression.

Do you think that feudalism is a concept? I would think that it was rather largely destroyed and I fail to see how capitalism is different.



3. Refusal to participate in elections. What I've heard a lot about on this site is "we fight tooth and nail for reform, but its stupid and pointless" no one fights tooth and nail for something that they think is useless.

Its not useless it gives us a vantage point from which to spring the revolution. We just believe that its not enough.



4. No concern for actual working class people. Per above, living wage laws healthcare and education are not stupid. They actually help working families in the here and now. If the far left actually cared about "workers" then this would be the first and foremost mission. If the left cared about the working class, we would support you. You don't care about us, so we say screw it, we'll do it ourselves.

This is an example of prolier-than-thou. I challenge you to find me a single post out of the 100k+ posts on revleft and show me someone who said anything which marginally resembles this statement. We simply believe that these reforms will not be enough for the working class and aren't things that can be provided successfully for everyone under capitalism, hence we look to socialism.



5. Stalism. Seriously? How are these people different from neo-nazis? Worshiping a mass murderer? Not only disgusting but completely counter productive.


1. The "more left than thou" attitude.

Yes, keep in mind that he didn't do any of the things he did for any reason. He just enjoyed killing people. Starvation--all his fault. Its not like the Soviet Union had to fend off the world's imperialist powers, the predatory multi-nationals, or the world's greatest war machine. Oh and in capitalist countries people don't starve. Because clearly public policy mistakes are the same thing as putting people in gas chambers. And its not like Stalin did any good, hell its not like he ended starvation in his country, brought healthcare and education to hundreds of millions of Russians (two things which you claim to care about), and stopped an international rise of fascism.

I'll admit that Stalin wasn't an angel, but comparing him to Hitler while calling yourself an anti-fascist just sounds alarmist and silly.



6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.
Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?

:confused:
It wouldn't kill me, but I would prefer not to. Because rich=/=bourgeois. And saying rich as it were bourgeois would make our theory more difficult to understand.



7. Per 5, far too many people have a flippant attitude in regards to violence. These people probably haven't witnessed real violence and/or don't have anyone the care about.

Sweeping generalization. We live in a world with too much violence, we just chose to do something about it.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=3347



8. No respect for individual rights. If they don't agree with us then they can hit the road (or the firing squad, per 5 and 7). Our way or nothing.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=2
Oh hey look our biggest group.



9. Per above, group think, lack of constructive criticism, and a complete lack of respect for dissenting opinions. What if your way of thinking isn't the only one? Maybe leftism is wrong? I don't really think so but what if? Can we afford to avoid even discussing it?

We should have criticism in every socialist regime.




10. Knee jerk reaction to anything that isn't ultra-double plus leftist as being reactionary, bussie, fascist, or (shudder) liberal.

Ok you kind of have us on this one.



11. Support for every murdering dictator who opposes "the west"

Nope we have too many people who make point 11 and tacitly support imperialism. By the way we don't support Qaddafi, Al Qaeda, or Saddam, we just think that America isn't genuinely trying to get rid of them because they love the people living in those countries.


That being said I've met some great people on this forum and witnessed some interesting debates. Best wishes to everyone.[/QUOTE]

[Impulse97]

1. The "more left than thou" attitude. Got enough of that at Antioch.

Yea, that's annoying, but righties do it to. Just look at the Repubs. since regan, they ousted anyone who wasn't conservative enough.



2. Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression.

FYI capitalism isn't the first system, others have risen and fallen before it why does this mean that capitalism won't fall? Is this just because you live under it in its heyday that you think that it can't fall?




3. Refusal to participate in elections. What I've heard a lot about on this site is "we fight tooth and nail for reform, but its stupid and pointless" no one fights tooth and nail for something that they think is useless.

This point, along with a few others are mere generalizations. Not all of us reject elections or think that they don't help the working class any. The reason many reject them, is because Fabianism doesn't work. Very few revolutions have been carried out this way and often they reverted back after a few years. With the exception of Chile that is, where the US 86'd the elected Pres.



4. No concern for actual working class people. Per above, living wage laws healthcare and education are not stupid. They actually help working families in the here and now. If the far left actually cared about "workers" then this would be the first and foremost mission. If the left cared about the working class, we would support you. You don't care about us, so we say screw it, we'll do it ourselves.

They do sometimes help the WC, but they're like cold medicine, they temporarily cure some of the symptoms and make you feel better, but they don't cure the cold itself. Oh, and that's totally why I'm Marxist, FUCK THOSE GREEDY WORKING SHITS.



5. Stalism. Seriously? How are these people different from neo-nazis? Worshiping a mass murderer? Not only disgusting but completely counter productive.

Again with the generalizations. I don't like him all that much either neither do many leftists. Don't go painting us all with the same brush. That said, I'd rather chill with a Stalinist over a Fascist any day.



6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.
Come on, you guys really say bourgeoisie? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean nobody does. There are plenty of other Marxists who are more recent with more recent lingo if your really having a hard time understanding the classics, but that doesn't mean their worthless. And richness =/= bourgeoisie. Relation to the MoP = Bourgeoisie.



8. No respect for individual rights. If they don't agree with us then they can hit the road (or the firing squad, per 5 and 7). Our way or nothing.

Tell me, if you want to get rid of an ant infestation, do you kill 90% of the colony and leave the others to grow and re infest your house? If you oust the caps do you leave a few in power in the people's government because you feel sorry for them? Allow them to re infest the world? Yet, again you paint us all with the same brush. Some of us prefer jail over killing the remaining caps. Either way they need to go. We need to get rid of the system and we can't do that with a bunch of people preaching its merits to the masses.



11. Support for every murdering dictator who opposes "the west".

Oh I know! Me and Gaddafi are homeboys. I'm having dinner with his family next week in his luxurious bunker in central Tripoli. :laugh::rolleyes::laugh:

[Manic Impressive]

2. Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression.
government and capitalism can be fought, it's the same as any progression in society as it was with feudalism to capitalism. Two classes with conflicting interests fought for control and the bourgeois replaced the aristocracy as the ruling class, as will the working class be the next class to take control.


3. Refusal to participate in elections. What I've heard a lot about on this site is "we fight tooth and nail for reform, but its stupid and pointless" no one fights tooth and nail for something that they think is useless.
This is a bit of dishonesty from communists, I can't think of one UK party who wouldn't participate in elections if they thought they had a chance of winning.

4. No concern for actual working class people. Per above, living wage laws healthcare and education are not stupid. They actually help working families in the here and now. If the far left actually cared about "workers" then this would be the first and foremost mission. If the left cared about the working class, we would support you. You don't care about us, so we say screw it, we'll do it ourselves.
I agree and was shocked at the attitude of some people here. But many of those same people will be out protesting and fighting tooth and nail for workers rights, although some of the people here just have their noses stuck in books.


5. Stalism. Seriously? How are these people different from neo-nazis? Worshiping a mass murderer? Not only disgusting but completely counter productive.
Stalinism I guess you mean, it isn't real these people are Leninists and again I agree their ideology is going nowhere.


6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.
Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?
Really? I think they're pretty easy to read. But anyway terms like bourgeois and proletariat denote their relation to the means of production, it's not simply a case of rich and poor.

[danyboy27]

1. The "more left than thou" attitude. Got enough of that at Antioch.

The sentence you are looking for is prolier than thou.
Yes there are some dubasses who see thing that way, but its hardly something common here.




2. Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression.

Well, like it or not, they are fighting you right now, so yes, we have every reason to oppose in an absolute manner capitalism, just like we have every reason to oppose slavery. The goal of the capitalist is to make money off my labor, he is working really hard to achieve that, its a constant battle, like ir or not.



3. Refusal to participate in elections. What I've heard a lot about on this site is "we fight tooth and nail for reform, but its stupid and pointless" no one fights tooth and nail for something that they think is useless.
.
the electoral system is only one of the many mean avaliable, to rely only on this would be foolish.



4. No concern for actual working class people. Per above, living wage laws healthcare and education are not stupid. They actually help working families in the here and now. If the far left actually cared about "workers" then this would be the first and foremost mission. If the left cared about the working class, we would support you. You don't care about us, so we say screw it, we'll do it ourselves.
.
What you fail to understand is, while those measures do help the woking class to a certain extent, these are the tool with wich the system can function. Personally, i am all in favor of any progressive measure, but is realistic about how much it solve problem. I am a worker myself.




5. Stalism. Seriously? How are these people different from neo-nazis? Worshiping a mass murderer? Not only disgusting but completely counter productive.
.
actually we got quite a lot of people here who hate the stalinoid.




6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.
Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?

.
there is actually quite a bit of modern litterature on the subject. A people history of the united state is a good exemple.



7. Per 5, far too many people have a flippant attitude in regards to violence. These people probably haven't witnessed real violence and/or don't have anyone the care about.

We got a lot of basement dweller here, your point?



8. No respect for individual rights. If they don't agree with us then they can hit the road (or the firing squad, per 5 and 7). Our way or nothing.


that not true, only a fews stalinoid advocate such harsh thing.



9. Per above, group think, lack of constructive criticism, and a complete lack of respect for dissenting opinions. What if your way of thinking isn't the only one? Maybe leftism is wrong? I don't really think so but what if? Can we afford to avoid even discussing it?

i have no idea what you are talking about.



10. Knee jerk reaction to anything that isn't ultra-double plus leftist as being reactionary, bussie, fascist, or (shudder) liberal.
.
its done to keep the forum doing what it supposed to do, revolutionary discussion between revolutionary leftist. Beside we got the OI for speaking about other ideologies.



I.

11. Support for every murdering dictator who opposes "the west"

Then again, a fews stalinoid and some PSL guy, a minority really.

[Aurora]

1. The "more left than thou" attitude. Got enough of that at Antioch.
The 'more ____ than thou' attitude is the basis of all activity on the internet, get over it, if you'd met any communist in real life i imagine you'd be quite surprised at how much there just like everyone else.


2. Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression.
Capitalism successfully wiped out Feudalism across the entire world i think it's ridiculous to think that capitalism will last forever, it's an entirely utopian point of view, also capitalism has been overthrown in revolutions in the past so that makes your belief in an 'absolute' capitalism kinda useless no?

Also you misunderstand the wars on drugs and terror, the reason they can't be won is because they serve a useful social purpose, essentially no one wants them to be won.


3. Refusal to participate in elections. What I've heard a lot about on this site is "we fight tooth and nail for reform, but its stupid and pointless" no one fights tooth and nail for something that they think is useless.
Almost all communists participate in elections where they are allowed by capitalism and i don't think anyone believes reforms are pointless, they're just temporary victories however and we must always point out the underlying problem and not concern ourselves solely with treating symptoms.


4.
See above


6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.
Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?
Come on, you cant be serious? because your unable to understand something which was written merely two generations ago means it's useless? That's laughable perhaps we should disregard Darwin i mean who even writes like that anymore, or Newton christ he was ages ago man.
And no, 'bourgeois' isn't in common usage at all, it's merely a much more accurate term than 'rich people' that is used in circles of communists.


7. Per 5, far too many people have a flippant attitude in regards to violence. These people probably haven't witnessed real violence and/or don't have anyone the care about.
Get real, like your the only one who knows what violence is.
To think of defeating an incredibly violent structure, that doesn't even blink at genocide, without arming ourselves is suicide. Hell even Gandhi recognized this when he told jews in germany to kill themselves en masse rather than fight back, what a disgusting attitude to have. Defending yourself is part of being human.


8. No respect for individual rights. If they don't agree with us then they can hit the road (or the firing squad, per 5 and 7). Our way or nothing.
Most communists support the massive expansion of individual rights, the thing they disagree with is the 'right to property' and subjugating the labour of others by means of such ownership. Tell me, do you support the right to own slaves? or the right to beat your kids? I hope not because these are socially unacceptable individual rights, on the other hand communists support the right to control your own body and right to marry whoever you like.



9. Per above, group think, lack of constructive criticism, and a complete lack of respect for dissenting opinions. What if your way of thinking isn't the only one? Maybe leftism is wrong? I don't really think so but what if? Can we afford to avoid even discussing it?
you realize your posting on Revleft right? a forum or discussion board.

Dunno why i wasted my time writing that..

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Social democrats can marginally be considered leftists I guess, they just aren't revolutionary.

[Per Levy]

2. Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression.

i wonder if you would have said the same thing about the monarchy and feudalism back in the days before they were fought and slain in many parts of the world. the point is capitalism can be beaten, its not easy nor will it happen over night but thats is part of the struggle.


3. Refusal to participate in elections. What I've heard a lot about on this site is "we fight tooth and nail for reform, but its stupid and pointless" no one fights tooth and nail for something that they think is useless.

the problem with elections is of course they change nothing, im now only talking about germany, there are 5 major parties here, and 4 of them are antiworker(yes the greens and the social dem are antiworker) and the 5th party the leftparty is selling out everywhere were they can gain power. so we have 5 major parties if you vote for them will pretty much screw you over if you're a worker/unemployed/poor. now tell me how will going to elections help?


4. No concern for actual working class people. Per above, living wage laws healthcare and education are not stupid. They actually help working families in the here and now.

the point with reforms is that they do help, but i as a part of the working class i dont want that reforms are the end of the struggle, the end of the struggle would be the end of exploitation. and not just some reforms that make lifes a little easier(as usefull as that is).


If the far left actually cared about "workers" then this would be the first and foremost mission. If the left cared about the working class, we would support you. You don't care about us, so we say screw it, we'll do it ourselves.

not only are you trying to imply that no one of the "far left" is a member of the working class, you also try to imply that the left in general dont care about the working class. so if we dont care about the working class who does then? liberals, social democrats? they selling out workers and worker rights everywhere, the union bosses maybe? they just care about money and no about the workers they suposed to represent.


6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.
Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?

just because some books arnt easy to understand doesnt mean they are bad or that they doesnt offer a lot of good analysis on current problems.


11. Support for every murdering dictator who opposes "the west"

that is quite a generalization, isnt it? i mean the majority of the members here doesnt support dictators, some do but they're a minority.


That being said I've met some great people on this forum and witnessed some interesting debates. Best wishes to everyone.

best wishes to you as well.

[Pretty Flaco]

Many people on here seem to be out of touch with working class people and it doesn't surprise me that they're typically marxist-leninists.

Also, "rich people" aren't all necessarily capitalists. "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" seem like archaic terms, but they're terms that describe the two main classes in marxist class definitions.

And not all proletarians are necessarily "poor people" either. A nurse and other skilled workers are still proletarians even though they don't make shit money.

[Hebrew Hammer]

1. The "more left than thou" attitude. Got enough of that at Antioch.

This isn't a specifically Leftist attitude and can be found anywhere. In American politics (Republicans big time) "I'm more patriotic than you," or "you just don't love America as much as me." In the metal music scene, "we're more brutal." In the punk music scene "we're punk as fuck, you're $ell outs." You can find this attitude and idiocy anywhere and everywhere you go.



3. Refusal to participate in elections. What I've heard a lot about on this site is "we fight tooth and nail for reform, but its stupid and pointless" no one fights tooth and nail for something that they think is useless.


We could participate in elections but what's really the point? It's like, if there was a better treatment for a medical illness, we could try method X, which would only work in the short-term but not fully take care of the problem or make it worse or we could try method Y which would work in the long-term and take care of the problem completely. There is nothing wrong (in my opinion) with gaining short-term victories via bourgeois elections and other such things but ultimately, it's not the correct treatment for the illness, as it were.



4. No concern for actual working class people. Per above, living wage laws healthcare and education are not stupid. They actually help working families in the here and now. If the far left actually cared about "workers" then this would be the first and foremost mission. If the left cared about the working class, we would support you. You don't care about us, so we say screw it, we'll do it ourselves.


Poppycock and twaddle speak.



5. Stalism. Seriously? How are these people different from neo-nazis? Worshiping a mass murderer? Not only disgusting but completely counter productive.


The most evil ideology known as 'Stalinism' doesn't encompass the whole of the revolutionary left. You are free to say this, Anarchists, Trotskyists, Left Communists and others do so all the time.



6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.


Unintelligible? Hardly, even so, there is current works out there by various authors.



Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?


The term "bourgeoisie," is a more specific and correct term to use, number one, number two, we could very well say "those fucking fat cats," would that be better? Do you think we would be taken very seriously if we went around saying "eat the rich!" or "kill the fat catz!"?



7. Per 5, far too many people have a flippant attitude in regards to violence. These people probably haven't witnessed real violence and/or don't have anyone the care about.


I don't think anyone here seriously doesn't bat an eye at violence except maybe over-zealous n00bz. Violence, political or otherwise, is a nasty thing, no one likes it, it's not a pleasant thing to discuss but it is a reality that can't just be swept under the carpet. The bourgeois-democratic revolutions were no less violent than the Socialist revolutions in Russia or China. It's the reality of the situation, no one really advocates it here (I don't think), it would be nice to have a peaceful revolution and say "hey rich folk, can we has the means of productions now and start this Socialisms up?" but the odds of that working are slim to none, thus violence and the possibility thereof is an excepted reality.


8. No respect for individual rights. If they don't agree with us then they can hit the road (or the firing squad, per 5 and 7). Our way or nothing.

I disagree.



9. Per above, group think, lack of constructive criticism, and a complete lack of respect for dissenting opinions. What if your way of thinking isn't the only one? Maybe leftism is wrong? I don't really think so but what if? Can we afford to avoid even discussing it?


No and I think people that hold such attitudes are intellectually weak. There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism or any of that. Personally, do I think Maoism would be the most useful tool (how I feel it should be viewed) to accomplish our goals? Yes, if there were a revolution and it was primarily led by some other tendency, would I be opposed to it? Of course not, I don't really care how it gets done, I just care that it gets done, period.



10. Knee jerk reaction to anything that isn't ultra-double plus leftist as being reactionary, bussie, fascist, or (shudder) liberal.


Really? Are you sure?



11. Support for every murdering dictator who opposes "the west"


Can (or will you) provide examples? You're speaking in generalities.

[jake williams]

2. Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression.
...
Maybe leftism is wrong? I don't really think so but what if? Can we afford to avoid even discussing it?

You're just arbitrarily applying this to things you implicitly support. Ethnic cleansing, slavery, and rape might be okay. Maybe women should be slaves to their husbands. Maybe the negro race is genetically inferior to whites, and is fit only for doing whatever physical labour we might enlighten their lives with.

Do you seriously entertain any of these things? I should hope not. Is there some abstract, transhistorical ethical standard from some sort of deity which would allow us to absolutely demonstrate which things are right and which things are wrong? No, there isn't. But we nowadays mostly manage to recognize as unambigously unacceptable slavery, sexual violence, and a whole series of things once thought acceptable (at least by their perpetrators).

Eventually we'll have a similar consensus regarding capitalism. We're never going to get a hint from God, but capitalism is clearly and demonstrably destructive, dehumanizing, antithetical to human flourishing.

We could afford to entertain the possibility that capitalism is good for people as much as we could afford to entertain the possibility that we should start retaining children as sex slaves: there isn't a real danger that we'll suddenly find it acceptable, though if we did it would be a catastrophe. But the whole process is still insulting to our own basic moral character, and that of others.


4. No concern for actual working class people. Per above, living wage laws healthcare and education are not stupid. They actually help working families in the here and now. If the far left actually cared about "workers" then this would be the first and foremost mission. If the left cared about the working class, we would support you. You don't care about us, so we say screw it, we'll do it ourselves.
I'm willing to grant you this, not of everyone but of quite a few people. What I will say is that if you grant, a priori, that capitalism is the best possible mode of social organization for workers, something you seem to be doing, then you're obviously going to judge as unconcerned about workers those who are fighting it. In this you'd be mistaken.


6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago. Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?
This isn't a fault of the radical left so much as it's the fault of a society which has largely collectively failed to intellectually progress since the late 19th century regarding analysis of society. It's no small tragedy that we are still using the language of a German ex-pat hanging out in London back when trains were still a relative historical novelty. The disconnect between their language and our own is not a failure of theory on their part, but of a failure to progress on ours. This does not, however, make Marx fundamentally wrong about capitalism in some particular way, or in any way suggest we re-adopt an anti-materialist understanding of society. In fact, the tendancy of intellectuals to do exactly this has been central in the very failure to move what we call "Marxism" along.


7. Per 5, far too many people have a flippant attitude in regards to violence. These people probably haven't witnessed real violence and/or don't have anyone the care about.
I think actual fetishism of violence is fairly rare, and is more often attributed to those who find some particular instances of anti-capitalist or anti-imperialist violence more acceptable than the capitalist and imperialist violence which you presumably find acceptable.

That said, where fetishism of violence really does exist, it's about as rational a position on violence as is absolute pacificism. I think both often represent a lack of life experience which would engender a rational understanding. I actually was a pretty hardcore pacifist basically until I got to know someone who had spent much of her life (partly violently) struggling against apartheid in South Africa. If you're a homeless black kid in apartheid South Africa, you're not coming to support the use of violence because you've never experienced it. You're supporting it because you have to, and self-defensive violence is the only way to stop everyone you know from being murdered. That you wouldn't understand this suggests that you don't really understand violence.


8. No respect for individual rights. If they don't agree with us then they can hit the road (or the firing squad, per 5 and 7). Our way or nothing.
The essence of political belief is that if you believe something, then everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. If you think abortion is actually murder, then everyone who supports abortion is wrong. If you think rape actually is fundamentally immoral, then you're doing to disagree with people who are pro-rape. If you're against genocide, then you're going to fundamentally disagree with people who pop up to defend it. That's just what it means to take a political position. Perhaps you could have your mind changed by evidence or experience, but as long as you have a belief, that's just what you believe.

You're implicitly accepting the totally baseless notion that there exists some set of "individual rights" which have existed, could exist or should exist throughout history and without regard to the societies in which they exist. In reality, the defenders of capitalist society defend a very particular set of rights - rights to property, rights to (bourgeois) civil society, and a few others - which have only recently existed, and which we have no particular reason to maintain. Socialists defend other "individual rights" - the right to democratically participate in the management of society, the right to housing, to food, to healthcare, to education, and so on. All of these rights are rights which capitalists don't just have "no respect for"; these are rights which capitalists have contemptuously and even violently tried to repress.

In the course of defending one particular set of rights - basically, property rights in a capitalist society - you're attacking others, others which I think are far more rational and humane. But nor do these other rights simply "exist" abstractly as a birthright to all people. The rights to healthcare, collective property and so on are only going to exist as rights when we win them, when we create the conditions to realize them (and thus, abolish the conditions which permit bourgeois property rights).


9. Per above, group think, lack of constructive criticism, and a complete lack of respect for dissenting opinions. What if your way of thinking isn't the only one?
I don't think you really understand how the radical left actually works (not that RevLeft is a good picture). The radical left, in the real world, is actually full of mostly honest, civil debate. Its participants really do care about getting it right, however much they, like all of us, can sometimes become accustomed to irrational beliefs.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

I came to this forum for two reasons; to learn more about the fringe left and ask questions to judge how much my own views line up with leftism and second, well, right wingers piss me off.

I was initially excited, for I am an ardent anti-fascist and a very left leaning person in general. But there are a few things that I just can't be associated with and, for these reasons, I will be visiting this part of the net very infrequently, if at all. In case you are interested (many of you probably aren't) I would like to quickly talk about my reasons for rejecting leftism as a whole.

1. The "more left than thou" attitude. Got enough of that at Antioch.

2. Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression.

3. Refusal to participate in elections. What I've heard a lot about on this site is "we fight tooth and nail for reform, but its stupid and pointless" no one fights tooth and nail for something that they think is useless.

4. No concern for actual working class people. Per above, living wage laws healthcare and education are not stupid. They actually help working families in the here and now. If the far left actually cared about "workers" then this would be the first and foremost mission. If the left cared about the working class, we would support you. You don't care about us, so we say screw it, we'll do it ourselves.

5. Stalism. Seriously? How are these people different from neo-nazis? Worshiping a mass murderer? Not only disgusting but completely counter productive.

6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.
Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?

7. Per 5, far too many people have a flippant attitude in regards to violence. These people probably haven't witnessed real violence and/or don't have anyone the care about.

8. No respect for individual rights. If they don't agree with us then they can hit the road (or the firing squad, per 5 and 7). Our way or nothing.

9. Per above, group think, lack of constructive criticism, and a complete lack of respect for dissenting opinions. What if your way of thinking isn't the only one? Maybe leftism is wrong? I don't really think so but what if? Can we afford to avoid even discussing it?

10. Knee jerk reaction to anything that isn't ultra-double plus leftist as being reactionary, bussie, fascist, or (shudder) liberal.

11. Support for every murdering dictator who opposes "the west"

That being said I've met some great people on this forum and witnessed some interesting debates. Best wishes to everyone.

'1. The "more left than thou" attitude. Got enough of that at Antioch.'

As you're not 'Left' and are simply a Social-Democrat that is opportunist in nature and seeks to maintain the existing Capitalist Social Structure in order to allow for various minor reforms that do not seek to overtly change this Social Structure and come at the cost of further exploitation of the Working Class and furtherly solidify Bourgeois Control.

'Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression. '

:rolleyes: Capitalism is a current system that is an existent evolving organism that can be destroyed upon the Working Class seizing control over the means of production, in the same sense that the Bourgeois was capable of overcoming Feudal Control over landownership

'3. Refusal to participate in elections. What I've heard a lot about on this site is "we fight tooth and nail for reform, but its stupid and pointless" no one fights tooth and nail for something that they think is useless.'

Participating in elections that allow for concessions to be made allows for further exploitation of the Proletariat and the maintaining of the Bourgeois Class System. Elections should be participated within in order to raise Proletarian Consciousness, Reforms that are to be made should be made in order to allow for minor changes within the Bourgeois System while at the same time being directly opposed to the Bourgeois System and using these minor reforms in order to demand an end to the Bourgeois Class System.

Reforms that are to be directly opposed are those that maintain the Bourgeois Class System and are more or less-- Concessions, inevitably the living standards of the Proletariat decline within Capitalism as Capitalism allows for marginalization, alienation and continued exploitation while ever expanding itself at the cost of the Working Class and exploiting the labor from the Working Class that is sold to the Bourgeois.

'4. No concern for actual working class people. Per above, living wage laws healthcare and education are not stupid. They actually help working families in the here and now. If the far left actually cared about "workers" then this would be the first and foremost mission. If the left cared about the working class, we would support you. You don't care about us, so we say screw it, we'll do it ourselves.'

Concern for the Working Class is to allow for the empowerment of the Working Class against the Bourgeois.

See also: The previous; Concessions made with the Bourgeois that allow for Class Collaboration and the continuing of the Bourgeois System do not 'help' the Proletariat as it maintains Bourgeois Class Control.

'5. Stalism. Seriously? How are these people different from neo-nazis? Worshiping a mass murderer? Not only disgusting but completely counter productive.'

:rolleyes: Those whom uphold the West? Seriously? How different are these people from Fascists, as they are worshiping what is the creation of massive slaughter (Upwards of one hundred million Native Americans from 1492 and onward, Colonization of Africa which had as well claimed millions of lives and still continues to claim millions of lives through forms of Neo-Colonialism and various conflicts which had as well claimed millions of lives in order to maintain the interests of the Bourgeois and Capitalism... See also: The Indochinese Conflicts, The First World War, Suharto, current Imperialist Conflicts and various other conflicts.) Not only is this disgusting-- But it is completely Bourgeois.

'6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.
Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?'

Works that lead the Proletariat towards understanding the basis of exploitation are not 'Unintelligible', they are the direct blueprints towards the basis of Proletarian Self-Emancipation, without these Works, there cannot be a Proletarian Self-Emancipation or an understanding of exploitation.

'Come on, you guys really say bourgoise'
Yes, as the Bourgeois is a Class that exploits the Proletariat and maintains Capitalism.

'Who talks like that? '
Those whom oppose the Capitalist System and seek to emancipate the Proletariat through an understanding of the current Capitalist System.


'7. Per 5, far too many people have a flippant attitude in regards to violence. These people probably haven't witnessed real violence and/or don't have anyone the care about.'

Which is the obvious reason that you're unopposed to Imperialism and allow for Western Imperialism to occur even when it results in a larger, more massive loss of life than 'Stalinism.'

In which, the present Western centric Capitalist and Imperialist System is capable of starving an upwards of 5,000,000 + per year in order to maintain the Western Bourgeois System. :rolleyes:

'8. No respect for individual rights. If they don't agree with us then they can hit the road (or the firing squad, per 5 and 7). Our way or nothing.'
In the same sense that the Capitalist System does. Liberalism is silly, there cannot be 'Two Ways' as either 'One Way' is maintained or the 'Other Way' is maintained.

Through the creation of the Proletarian System, the Proletariat is emancipated and allowed for further freedoms that were considered trivial in the Bourgeois System; However certainly Bourgeois Privileges are to be abolished and the former Bourgeois is to be allowed to be reformed in order to be content with the Proletarian System. In the same sense that hte Bourgeois has previously done to the Proletariat in order to maintain their Capitalist System.



'. Per above, group think, lack of constructive criticism, and a complete lack of respect for dissenting opinions. What if your way of thinking isn't the only one? Maybe leftism is wrong? I don't really think so but what if? Can we afford to avoid even discussing it? '

Self-Criticism is the basis of Proletarian conceptualization as it allows one to ponder on which basis that Proletarian Class Based Control is to be solidified and which forms of experimentation thereof in achieving this are to be accepted.

'10. Knee jerk reaction to anything that isn't ultra-double plus leftist as being reactionary, bussie, fascist, or (shudder) liberal.'

As it is the above and should be regarded as such.


'11. Support for every murdering dictator who opposes "the west' '

:rolleyes: As opposed to maintaining the support for the murderous and exploitative Bourgeois Imperialist System that allows for various dictators to arise in support of the West? As opposed to maintaining the support for the slaughter that the Imperialist System is complicit in? :rolleyes:


Typical Post-Modernist Liberal silliness.

[Ele'ill]

I came to this forum for two reasons; to learn more about the fringe left and ask questions to judge how much my own views line up with leftism and second, well, right wingers piss me off.

I was initially excited, for I am an ardent anti-fascist and a very left leaning person in general. But there are a few things that I just can't be associated with and, for these reasons, I will be visiting this part of the net very infrequently, if at all. In case you are interested (many of you probably aren't) I would like to quickly talk about my reasons for rejecting leftism as a whole.

So you're not left or right?


1. The "more left than thou" attitude. Got enough of that at Antioch.

Yeah a lot of us hate that too or ignore it in the same way we do people talking loudly on their cell phones. It's obnoxious.


2. Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression.

They physically manifest in the world we currently have. They can be fought both ideologically and physically if necessary. Agitate, Educate, Organize.


3. Refusal to participate in elections. What I've heard a lot about on this site is "we fight tooth and nail for reform, but its stupid and pointless" no one fights tooth and nail for something that they think is useless.

We're not in favor of reform. We're not looking to change the system we're trying to abolish it. Myself and lots of other users do not understand how leftists can take part in elections- it doesn't make any sense to us at all.


4. No concern for actual working class people. Per above, living wage laws healthcare and education are not stupid. They actually help working families in the here and now. If the far left actually cared about "workers" then this would be the first and foremost mission. If the left cared about the working class, we would support you. You don't care about us, so we say screw it, we'll do it ourselves.

So when local chapters and labor coalitions engage in actions (strikes, pickets, walk-outs etc..) they're not caring about working class folk (themselves? :huh:) because they've identified those laws and policies as being drafted and put into place by the ruling class to benefit ruling class interest?

Do you want bread or a meal?




5. Stalism. Seriously? How are these people different from neo-nazis? Worshiping a mass murderer? Not only disgusting but completely counter productive.

If you can't answer that question yourself you have a bit of reading to do before presenting this as any type of talking point.


6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.
Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?

I don't like the older texts in regards to current application of action/practice but I do find them interesting.



7. Per 5, far too many people have a flippant attitude in regards to violence. These people probably haven't witnessed real violence and/or don't have anyone the care about.

lol, those who have witnessed 'real violence' realize that often times 'real violence' is an excellent method of self defense.




8. No respect for individual rights. If they don't agree with us then they can hit the road (or the firing squad, per 5 and 7). Our way or nothing.

I don't know, this here is another nothing-statement by you. I usually stop reading after five or six but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and keep reading. :rolleyes:


9. Per above, group think, lack of constructive criticism, and a complete lack of respect for dissenting opinions. What if your way of thinking isn't the only one? Maybe leftism is wrong? I don't really think so but what if? Can we afford to avoid even discussing it?

We weren't born leftists- we arrived at the leftist conclusion by thinking in the first place. :rolleyes:


10. Knee jerk reaction to anything that isn't ultra-double plus leftist as being reactionary, bussie, fascist, or (shudder) liberal.

I'm sorry there are people like this out there- but this isn't 'the left' :rolleyes:


11. Support for every murdering dictator who opposes "the west"

lol lack of understanding leftist positions before entering into a conversation lol

[Red_Devotchka]

i agree on some points (especially the stalinism one) but disagree with some as well... i still think tht "leftist" is the best way to describe my way of thinking. but, yeah, revisionism and maybe trying to be more realistic wouldnt be bad... especially for some dogmatically blind...

[Hebrew Hammer]

i agree on some points (especially the stalinism one) but disagree with some as well... i still think tht "leftist" is the best way to describe my way of thinking. but, yeah, revisionism and maybe trying to be more realistic wouldnt be bad... especially for some dogmatically blind...

Le sigh.

[JustMovement]

A) you are a leftist, although not a Marxist-Leninist, and maybe not a revolutionary. B) Revleft is not representative of the activist movement.

[Delenda Carthago]

why i dont give a fuck?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Many people on here seem to be out of touch with working class people and it doesn't surprise me that they're typically marxist-leninists.

the working class = Leftcoms

snrrk

[Hebrew Hammer]

why i dont give a fuck?

^Best post in the entire thread.

[Geiseric]

Most of your problems seem to be with stalinists it sounds to me. Or PSL Marxist Leninists. The election thing is being realistic, theres no point losing a bunch of money on an election we're never gonna win.

[Kadir Ateş]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/icons/icon1.gif Why I'm Not A Leftist

Don't worry, neither am I.

[Diello]

This sounds less like "Why I'm not a leftist" than it does "Why I find RevLeft annoying."

[Princess Luna]

6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.
Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/5/19/129187413205003740.jpg

[Pretty Flaco]

I think Capital is probably the book he was talking about. :lol:


the working class = Leftcoms

snrrk

The marxist-leninist agenda represents me about as much as the republicans represent me. Except the republicans don't pretend to want to help me.

[Hebrew Hammer]

The marxist-leninist agenda represents me about as much as the republicans represent me. Except the republicans don't pretend to want to help me.

http://4funz.com/Funny-Pictures/random/img-brilliant-121

[Pioneers_Violin]

Good bye Teacher.

Best of luck and...
I hope that during the learning process called Life you figure out why we feel that many of your assertions are wrong.

[Viet Minh]

I'm not a leftist because Obamer is a commie and I h8 him

Srsly though OP in case you hadn't noticed people on here debate many of those points frequently.. Just because you disagree with Stalin(ists) doesn't mean you outright reject the entire left, the only relevant point there is the issue of anti-capitalism. You make the mistake of actually thinking there have been non-capitalist states, which of course there haven't. I admit I came here as a liberal capitalist but I came to realise that 'what the hand giveth, the other take away' this very literally applies to the Democrats and Republicans, or here in the UK Tories and Labour. The only real safe long term solution for the working class is Socialism.

I'm not trying to be a douche btw, I know threads like this usually result in

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qG2-5JvZBCw/SwxdZMCIfaI/AAAAAAAAAGs/DWFd09aXhwE/s320/1bodysnatchers.jpg

and the wolves circle, baying for blood. That kinda sucks because you're obviously not trolling, you seem to me to just be being open and honest, I respect that and its not like we can't debate differences of opinion civilly.. :unsure:

[The Teacher]

Sokay,

First of all, I'd be the first to admit that no one should care what I think.

Far too many people telling me what I believe, what I want, who I support, and I think someone said I'm pro-genocide.

Taking that aside, a few people made some good points here. A few others said "You're wrong" which is a fine opinion, just not an argument. Same for the people who said I just don't understand...blah, blah, blah.

A few things.

1. Darwin. Have you ever tried to read Origin of Species? On and on about pigeons...anyway, the fact is Charles D didn't know very much about evolution. He stumbled upon it but the real work was done much later by a large number of other scientists. That who you should read.

2. If this "revolution" of yours does come, how do you stop it from becoming a nonstop killing spree or simply establish a new kind of oppression? You can't. Now some one will jump on and say "What about the ten billion native people murdered 400 years ago?" Fuck'em they're already dead. My concern is for the people alive today. Innocent people who WILL be murdered or locked away in prison if such a thing comes to pass.

3. After the revolution, what if I decide not to work? You still gonna feed me? How will you know how much work I've been doing? If you keep feeding me, then more and more people stop working. If you don't then how is this system different than our current work or starve system?

[Tim Finnegan]

2. If this "revolution" of yours does come, how do you stop it from becoming a nonstop killing spree or simply establish a new kind of oppression? You can't. Now some one will jump on and say "What about the ten billion native people murdered 400 years ago?" Fuck'em they're already dead. My concern is for the people alive today. Innocent people who WILL be murdered or locked away in prison if such a thing comes to pass.
Can I just observe that the very "vote" which you appreciate so very greatly as to wear in your sig was achieved by much the same ends? What is it about proletarian revolution, exactly, that must descend into bloodshed and despotism, while bourgeois revolution can leap merrily forward into the Elysian Fields of liberal democracy? Perhaps the reason that you are "not a leftists" is not that you consider leftists a path to barbarism, but that you consider the working class intrinsically barbarous?


3. After the revolution, what if I decide not to work? You still gonna feed me? How will you know how much work I've been doing? If you keep feeding me, then more and more people stop working. If you don't then how is this system different than our current work or starve system?Because we're not asking you to work for us, we're asking you to work with us, a full participant in democratic production rather than a subjugated wage-serf. If you would rather lie down and starve to death, then, well, so be it; who are we to tell you what to do?

[MarxSchmarx]

1. Darwin. Have you ever tried to read Origin of Species? On and on about pigeons...anyway, the fact is Charles D didn't know very much about evolution. He stumbled upon it but the real work was done much later by a large number of other scientists. That who you should read.


I've read origin of species and found it dreadfully dull and boring. thank goodness he didn't deliver on having it be his preface to a 12 volume series.



2. If this "revolution" of yours does come, how do you stop it from becoming a nonstop killing spree or simply establish a new kind of oppression? You can't. Now some one will jump on and say "What about the ten billion native people murdered 400 years ago?" Fuck'em they're already dead. My concern is for the people alive today. Innocent people who WILL be murdered or locked away in prison if such a thing comes to pass.


My goodness you're right. I think we should just settle for the millions of people who die from malnutrition, lack of accesss to clean drinking water, preventable disease, exposure, workplace "accidents" every year etc... because the alternative appears so horrific.



3. After the revolution, what if I decide not to work? You still gonna feed me? How will you know how much work I've been doing? If you keep feeding me, then more and more people stop working. If you don't then how is this system different than our current work or starve system?

I think you mean "work and starve" system. You know that's what the cappies want what with these god-awful pensions and everything. Just die already, make room for the next chum we can slowly work to death!

[WeAreReborn]

Sokay,

1. Darwin. Have you ever tried to read Origin of Species? On and on about pigeons...anyway, the fact is Charles D didn't know very much about evolution. He stumbled upon it but the real work was done much later by a large number of other scientists. That who you should read.
Except you need the fundamentals to know how the other scientists reached their own conclusions.


2. If this "revolution" of yours does come, how do you stop it from becoming a nonstop killing spree or simply establish a new kind of oppression? You can't. Now some one will jump on and say "What about the ten billion native people murdered 400 years ago?" Fuck'em they're already dead. My concern is for the people alive today. Innocent people who WILL be murdered or locked away in prison if such a thing comes to pass.
You should read about revolutionary tactics. It isn't just a free for all murdering fest. How can you say for certain that innocent people will be murdered and thrown in prison? Not to mention this current system does so on an incredibly massive scale. So much so that even IF the revolution tried to mimic it I doubt it could.


3. After the revolution, what if I decide not to work? You still gonna feed me? How will you know how much work I've been doing? If you keep feeding me, then more and more people stop working. If you don't then how is this system different than our current work or starve system?
Because once you work you are able to be GUARANTEED everything you need. Capitalism doesn't do this. Plus you really should read about leftist tendencies, it is clear you don't have a large background on it and are just jumping to bold conclusions.

[Viet Minh]

A few things.

1. Darwin. Have you ever tried to read Origin of Species? On and on about pigeons...anyway, the fact is Charles D didn't know very much about evolution. He stumbled upon it but the real work was done much later by a large number of other scientists. That who you should read.

Darwin isn't essential to leftism, thats an issue thats still debated here frequently, but no reason to disavow leftism entirely.


2. If this "revolution" of yours does come, how do you stop it from becoming a nonstop killing spree or simply establish a new kind of oppression? You can't. Now some one will jump on and say "What about the ten billion native people murdered 400 years ago?" Fuck'em they're already dead. My concern is for the people alive today. Innocent people who WILL be murdered or locked away in prison if such a thing comes to pass.

Me personally I'm a reformist, its not worth doing if we don't have the support of the majority of the working class. Elections (as they currently are) aren't essential but democracy is, if you get what I'm trying to say. Basically I'm all for forming a leftist party and standing in elections, as a way to mobilize people and raise important issues and support. However thats not necessarily the way to come into power, because the constitution is fundamentally anti-leftist anyway so one way or another there needs to be a complete change in the system. My personal idea of a revolution (as far as the US is concerned) is just to gain a majority within a state (or ideally several states) and secede from the Union. At which point the ultra conservatives will leave (some will of course remain as a terrorist threat but we can exile them fairly easily in time).


3. After the revolution, what if I decide not to work? You still gonna feed me? How will you know how much work I've been doing? If you keep feeding me, then more and more people stop working. If you don't then how is this system different than our current work or starve system?


In this day and age of technology a handful of farmers can support a populations food needs, in my (admitedly fairly limited) experience of human nature those who are willing and able are around say 30-40% which is adequate. I am one of those who find myself helping others for no good reason. Other options are to divide the land equally, then people are responsible for themselves. Forced labour (ie slavery) as in cambodia for instance is not socialism imo, in fact quite the opposite.

[Tim Finnegan]

Me personally I'm a reformist, its not worth doing if we don't have the support of the majority of the working class.
That principle hardly excludes revolutionism, at least as I understand it. :confused:

[Franz Fanonipants]

comrades basically the teacher is a sock for inquisitive lurker i have five bucks ridin on it

[Franz Fanonipants]

The marxist-leninist agenda represents me about as much as the republicans represent me. Except the republicans don't pretend to want to help me.

that's a substantive criticism you see what really

[Viet Minh]

That principle hardly excludes revolutionism, at least as I understand it. :confused:

No sorry I confused two trains of thought there (hey its late!) I meant the movement needs to be democratic, as far as the working class are concerned, but not necesarily as far as the rigged electoral process is concerned. For a revolution of any sort of course you need a working majority at least, especially considering the power imbalance between rich and poor.

I should rephrase
"Me personally I'm a reformist, it doesn't have to be bloody revolution and totalitarian regime. A revolution is not actually worth having if a) we don't have the support of the majority of the working class (even with the best intentions in the World its unworkable) and b) It doesn't completely smash capitalism and any sort of opression"

[Kuppo Shakur]

Excuse me may I have all y'alls attention nah.


If this "revolution" of yours does come, how do you stop it from becoming a nonstop killing spree or simply establish a new kind of oppression? You can't.
[etc.]
STFU and RTFM N0000B.

[Geiseric]

First of all Darwin was reseaching NATURE like how stuff lives IN THE WILD. He wasn't an anthropologist. The stuff he wrote WAS FOR ANIMALS and plants. Fuck, he'd be so pissed if he heard his theories were being used to justify oppression in human society. Also, what makes you think people will stop working all of a sudden after everything they temporarily need is provided? In order for the system to work, and for them to keep getting benefits they need to contribute their fair share. When you picture socialism, instead of thinking 1984 (which is stalinism and fascism mixed, not socialism at all) think of how things would work on say the simplest societal structure, a tribe of people. In indian tribes everybody got what they needed in return for helping others with their fair share. the thing is, people keep working if their needs are met. They need to maintain their life style, it's not like everything they use comes out of thin air. the best way to implement socialism is at the bottom.

[Blackburn]

3. After the revolution, what if I decide not to work? You still gonna feed me? How will you know how much work I've been doing? If you keep feeding me, then more and more people stop working. If you don't then how is this system different than our current work or starve system?

Have you ever just done that? Just stopped working?

I have. It gets old really quick. Work gives people meaning and purpose, especially if they are in a job that will benefit others.

[MGP]

@The Teacher

Leftism isn't an unified ideology, it's a vaguely defined name which encompasses many different tendencies. Many of your disagreements are either disagreements with only some of them, mainly Marxism-Leninism, or criticism of personal opinions of some people, like this for example.



7. Per 5, far too many people have a flippant attitude in regards to violence. These people probably haven't witnessed real violence and/or don't have anyone the care about.


Sadly, there is only one thing you said that all "leftists" here by definition disagree with.



2. Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression.


Capitalism is an economic system, I don't think analogies about beast killing or simple statements can prove anything here, or that they will lead to constructive discussion. As you know, for most of time humanity lived under different economic systems which is proof enough that capitalism isn't the only possible way. Two questions than remain, if you ask me, whether it's the best one and what the best would mean? For example, If you are very rich then it's likely you would view capitalism favorably, but many will disagree with that, usually the ones which are disadvantaged by it. Reasons why we think disadvantaged, or the great majority of humanity in our opinion, can choose better can be both diverse and complex. If you really are open minded I would advise you to try and look specifically for arguments why capitalism should be replaced and by what, because that is the best way to see what really characterizes anti-capitalism and do you actually disagree with all of us or not. Also, I would strongly advise you to try and not get sidetracked with confusing different tendencies/personal opinions with anti-capitalism generally because you seem really inclined to do it.

[Coach Trotsky]

2. If this "revolution" of yours does come, how do you stop it from becoming a nonstop killing spree or simply establish a new kind of oppression? You can't. Now some one will jump on and say "What about the ten billion native people murdered 400 years ago?" Fuck'em they're already dead. My concern is for the people alive today. Innocent people who WILL be murdered or locked away in prison if such a thing comes to pass.

The answer is workers' power. It's not perfect, it's not going to be perfect.
Don't try to fuck over the workers, and you'll probably be fine. Try to fuck over the workers, and you'll almost certainly be dead meat...what'd ya expect?



3. After the revolution, what if I decide not to work? You still gonna feed me? How will you know how much work I've been doing? If you keep feeding me, then more and more people stop working. If you don't then how is this system different than our current work or starve system?
Well, the workers wielding their own power will have ways of encouraging you to work. There will be incentives, and there will be consequences. "From each according to their ability..." doesn't sound like Marxists are making a case for laziness under socialism.

[Drosophila]

I'll admit that Stalin wasn't an angel, but comparing him to Hitler while calling yourself an anti-fascist just sounds alarmist and silly.


Hitler was very easily comparable to Stalin. While Stalin did not base his mass executions on race or ethnicity, he did make himself into a sort of "god", and silenced any and all dissent.

[#FF0000]

hi guys i don't know anything about what im talking about but heres my opinions anyway

[#FF0000]

Hitler was very easily comparable to Stalin. While Stalin did not base his mass executions on race or ethnicity, he did make himself into a sort of "god", and silenced any and all dissent.

nah

[Hebrew Hammer]

Hitler was very easily comparable to Stalin. While Stalin did not base his mass executions on race or ethnicity, he did make himself into a sort of "god", and silenced any and all dissent.

Stalin is God.

[Dumb]

Stalin is God.

Oh, come on. I mean, yeah, sure, Stalin was a bad guy, but he wasn't that bad...

Anyway, Teach, I'll give you my impression, for what it's worth.

You say we don't tolerate individual rights or political dissent. Go take a look at your previous thread regarding political dissent after the revolution (http://www.revleft.com/vb/political-dissent-after-t156794/index.html?t=156794). If you click on the spot where it currently says that there are 44 replies in the thread, you'll get a pop-up window showing 20 people - yourself included - have posted in the thread. That's 19 of us. So far, I only see one poster giving an apparently sincere proposal to persecute political dissidents - Jimmie Higgins' statement that "if someone right after a revolution was in a workplace and trying to win people over to counter-revolution at a time when there was active counter-revolution going on, it would have to be taken more seriously." I'm really reaching here.

(ZeroNowhere's proposal that "they should all be put to death," and his declaration that "Genocide is that Party's way of life," were clearly over-the-top satire).

So you get 18 respondents saying some variation of "tolerate/ignore/laugh at dissidents," and 1 respondent saying that under such-and-such circumstances, dissidents would "have to be taken more seriously." You asked us, and so far this so-called opposition to individual rights was manifested in a sincere form by 5.3% of your respondents. Your argument that we oppose individual rights and want to persecute dissidents is based on 5%.

Based on this, you give me the impression that your observations and conclusions are based on extensive cherry-picking to match the preconceptions that you likely arrived at this forum with. If you're going to ignore 95% of us and characterize this entire forum based on 5%, then I don't see what the point is of holding a discussion with you. There's a 95% chance you won't be paying attention anyway.

(PS to Jimmie Higgins: I don't mean to pick on you. You didn't come off as authoritarian; as said before, I was really reaching.)

[RGacky3]

Taking things that a tiny minority of leftists do, or believe in, and saying that it is a "problem with the left" is rediculous and idiotic.

[Thirsty Crow]

1. The "more left than thou" attitude. Got enough of that at Antioch.Yeah, there are people who are like that. And so what? Do you expect that everyone will conform to your expectations?


2. Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "absolutism".

Moreover, there is a blatant contradiction here: "things like...are concepts". Things cannot be "things" and "concepts" at the same time.
But I get the point. It seems that you''ve fallen prey to the ahistorical fatalism of one or another variant of the "end of history" variant (which is nowhere as obvious as in your politics as expressed in this point, these being only defensive and necessarily futile)


3. Refusal to participate in elections. What I've heard a lot about on this site is "we fight tooth and nail for reform, but its stupid and pointless" no one fights tooth and nail for something that they think is useless.Here, you mistakenly identify participation in elections with zthe struggle for reforms.
Moreover, I'd like you to quote a person who said that fighting for reforms is stupid. But I'd guess that this person is not working class in fact, or in other words, that this person didn't experience some of the more despair inducing conditions which the workers face.

4. No concern for actual working class people. Per above, living wage laws healthcare and education are not stupid. They actually help working families in the here and now. If the far left actually cared about "workers" then this would be the first and foremost mission. If the left cared about the working class, we would support you. You don't care about us, so we say screw it, we'll do it ourselves. See above. Basically, you're creating a phantom of a homogenous "left" which you want to bash.
And you don't even do the bashing correctly.


5. Stalism. Seriously? How are these people different from neo-nazis? Worshiping a mass murderer? Not only disgusting but completely counter productive.Again, a phantom, phantasm if you'd like.
Just to be clear, I'm not a Stalinist and I think that the people who identify as such have a terribly blurred vision when it comes to class politics.
However, to conflate these with neo-nazis is beyond any kind of reason.
I'll speak from where I stand: Stalinists are different from neo-nazis in that they'd physically help out a person being physically assaulted by actual neo-nazis.
Moreover, they do not advocate racialist and racist political positions.
Also, I don't think they build an altar of Saint Joseph Stalin and worship while sacrificing kulak babies. And yet again, a misrepresentation and a phantom of yours.


6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.
Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?So, you've tried to read an "old" book and didn't quite get it?
No worries, there are online courses on reading skills, I suppose.



7. Per 5, far too many people have a flippant attitude in regards to violence. These people probably haven't witnessed real violence and/or don't have anyone the care about.OK, I'll concede the point.
However, let me add just this: from my experience on this board, it is the resident Maoist crew that's most prone to endorsing such stuff.


8. No respect for individual rights. If they don't agree with us then they can hit the road (or the firing squad, per 5 and 7). Our way or nothing. I don't acknowledge an individual's right to dominate over others and to exploit them. It seems that this is the position from which you're speaking (well, it seems that you've "outed" yourself as a social democrat so this is a moot point).

Fuck, I don't have the time or will to go through all of your assorted strawmen.
Best of luck!

[The Teacher]

comrades basically the teacher is a sock for inquisitive lurker i have five bucks ridin on it

What's a sock and who is IL?

[The Teacher]

Have you ever just done that? Just stopped working?

I have. It gets old really quick. Work gives people meaning and purpose, especially if they are in a job that will benefit others.

Yep.

[The Teacher]

Oh, come on. I mean, yeah, sure, Stalin was a bad guy, but he wasn't that bad...

Anyway, Teach, I'll give you my impression, for what it's worth.

You say we don't tolerate individual rights or political dissent. Go take a
(PS to Jimmie Higgins: I don't mean to pick on you. You didn't come off as authoritarian; as said before, I was really reaching.)

The majority of the responders said that there wouldn't be any serious opposition because the new system would be super awesome. That's not an answer. People often fear change. Revolutions happen by some degree of force. Anyone who says otherwise...I just don't know. Can we really expect everyone to go merrily along with a radical change based on a singular point of view and that there will be no resistence or coercion?

[Dumb]

Originally Posted by The Teacher
7. Per 5, far too many people have a flippant attitude in regards to violence. These people probably haven't witnessed real violence and/or don't have anyone the care about.
OK, I'll concede the point.
However, let me add just this: from my experience on this board, it is the resident Maoist crew that's most prone to endorsing such stuff.


Going off of Menocchio (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2163220&postcount=50) here - capitalism is an inherently violent system (the most violent system in human history, I'd argue). What we have right now is bourgeoisie-on-worker violence, and leftists are the only group I know advocate defensive worker-on-bourgeoisie violence. So, in the sense that leftists don't want workers to act as sitting ducks for the ruling class, yes, leftists do advocate violence.

But the real point is, violence will be had whether we want it or not. Bourgeois violence has a way of afflicting even the most peaceful movements (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c273/lobosolo/Radical/cops-attack-black-protesters.jpg?t=1241901741).

[The Teacher]

Just to be clear, the American Revolution was an orgy of violence that resulted in the death of many innocent people before during and after (look up the origin of the term lynch mob). The government that came to power was not intrinsically different than the English parliment (in purpose, not form). There was a rapid turn toward tyranny and suppression of dissent, political parties quickly consolidated control over the government. Slavery still existed, genocide of native tribes would soon begin.

The US war of independence was one of the least bloody revolutions in history because such a small percentage of the population was slaughtered. Something like 1 in 50. Compare that to a 2 cent tax on a box of tea...makes you wonder if it was worth it. Of course, the US government didn't stay the same throughout history. We got a few things straightened out eventually.

Imagine what a violent revolution in the US would look like today. Bombings, arson, police crackdowns, shooting in the street...it makes my stomach turn to think of the number of people who would suffer. No one should ever want something like that to happen. I imagine someone will say that its okay for that to happen because the current system causes suffering. But I didn't choose the current system, I can choose whether or not to commit acts of revolutionary violence and I choose not to. Such a thing wouldn't suceed anyway. The majority of revolutions fail outright and many of the "successful" ones give us crapholes like the USSR or the People's Republic of Capitalism.

[Dumb]

The majority of the responders said that there wouldn't be any serious opposition because the new system would be super awesome. That's not an answer. People often fear change. Revolutions happen by some degree of force. Anyone who says otherwise...I just don't know. Can we really expect everyone to go merrily along with a radical change based on a singular point of view and that there will be no resistence or coercion?

Looking at that thread, I see two people making that argument* without also making an argument to the effect of "ignore them/laugh at them/leave them alone," etc. That's what I find so aggravating, if you detect a trace of aggravation in my tone - you give very disproportionate amounts of attention to arguments you've cherry-picked to build up your straw men regarding the general character of the people who post here.

It's been my experience that there's plenty of stuff to criticize RevLeft posters on - impatience with one's fellow person online, confrontational behavior, lack of street smarts, lack of sexual prowess, lack of a "life," all of which at least apply to me if not a few others - but generally, the desire to suppress capitalist dissidents is not one of those tendencies. The sense I get from you is that, in order to meet your standards, we'd have to have absolutely zero Stalin apologism, absolutely zero advocacy for violence, absolutely zero intolerance for dissidence, etc. You might not think so, but the fact is that you've ignored a host of people on this site who do not resemble the trite, stereotypical leftist straw men you've constructed (or rather, perpetuated).

*(Besides, the argument wasn't that the new system would be "super awesome" - it was that you were postulating that the >99% of the population currently out of power would gladly give power back to the <1% currently in power).

So yeah...if you want to have a productive discussion, there's one to be had on here. It's just looking like you'd rather beat up on straw men and ignore the leftists who want to have that productive discussion with you.

[Dumb]

Imagine what a violent revolution in the US would look like today. Bombings, arson, police crackdowns, shooting in the street...it makes my stomach turn to think of the number of people who would suffer. No one should ever want something like that to happen. I imagine someone will say that its okay for that to happen because the current system causes suffering. But I didn't choose the current system, I can choose whether or not to commit acts of revolutionary violence and I choose not to. Such a thing wouldn't suceed anyway. The majority of revolutions fail outright and many of the "successful" ones give us crapholes like the USSR or the People's Republic of Capitalism.

Well, considering the size of the current prison population in the U.S., and the murder rates...we're already seeing the violence, and the U.S. is hardly the most egregious example. Violence is inescapable and inevitable in this system.

Besides, you assume that there's only one revolutionary form. Are you not familiar with The Mass Strike by Rosa Luxemburg?

[The Teacher]

in order to meet your standards, we'd have to have absolutely zero Stalin apologism, absolutely zero advocacy for violence, absolutely zero intolerance for dissidence

Yes. That would meet my standards. Naturally no one should care what I think about anything but that would be my preference. Obviously everyone has a right to disagree with me and I'd be damned surprised if 99% of the people here didn't think I was full of shit.

[The Teacher]

The Mass Strike[/U] by Rosa Luxemburg?

I've heard the name. Did that idea help a revolution win? If not then there is no argument.

[JustMovement]

I don't think they build an altar of Saint Joseph Stalin and worship while sacrificing kulak babies.

The blood of the kulak babies shall fertelise our collectivised farms!

[Dumb]

in order to meet your standards, we'd have to have absolutely zero Stalin apologism, absolutely zero advocacy for violence, absolutely zero intolerance for dissidence

Yes. That would meet my standards. Naturally no one should care what I think about anything but that would be my preference. Obviously everyone has a right to disagree with me and I'd be damned surprised if 99% of the people here didn't think I was full of shit.

The problem is that nothing else would make you happy. By that same standard, I could just as easily state that social democrats slash the welfare state, smash union rights and demand that the working class shoulder the full burden of economic crises - all because the levels of such activity among social democrats is greater than zero.

As an aside, it's not that we think you're full of shit; it's that you come across as patronizing and condescending, without seeming to even bother with the stronger, more pertinent responses we give you. It feels like having a debate with Christopher Hitchens.


I've heard the name. Did that idea help a revolution win? If not then there is no argument.

Nice cop-out, if you want to ignore the fact that the working class in today's industrialized countries dwarfs that of Germany 1919 or Russia 1917 in proportional (and numerical) terms. (Or, nice cop-out if you just don't want to discuss alternative revolutionary forms).

Did social democracy ever put in place a reform that was neither (a) subsequently repealed, or (b) placed on the chopping block at present? "Then there is no argument," either.

(And, by the way, the German Revolution, the one Luxemburg was involved with - one that mobilized half a million workers in Germany in 1919, by the way - ultimately failed because the social democrats decided they didn't want any part in a working-class revolution - that's pretty incontrovertible).

[The Teacher]

[QUOTE=

Did social democracy ever put in place a reform that was neither (a) subsequently repealed, or (b) placed on the chopping block at present? "Then there is no argument," either.

QUOTE]

Child labor laws
Minimum wage laws
40 hour work week
SSI

[The Teacher]

The stronger points don't need debunking. I agree with them. I debate against the points that I feel are weak.

Think of me as a sparring partner. Do you want me to take it easy on you or punch the crap out of you so you get tougher, faster, etc? Punch back, its what a sparring partner is for.

[Thirsty Crow]

The majority of the responders said that there wouldn't be any serious opposition because the new system would be super awesome. That's not an answer. People often fear change. Revolutions happen by some degree of force. Anyone who says otherwise...I just don't know. Can we really expect everyone to go merrily along with a radical change based on a singular point of view and that there will be no resistence or coercion?
To reiterate my point from the dissent thread, one which you never bothered to address, why would revolutionaries bother accomodating the wishes of the very same people who would command their labour, exploit them and alienate them from the resources of the decision making process which is integral to their conditions of life and work?

And yes, there would be coercion in relation to teh rich (now you happy?) who resist the measures undertaken by associated workers.
In my opinion, dissent without action is futile and it is not to be expected. Therefore, I'd advocate prison sentences for those who take up arms or any other kind of violence against the revolutionary workers' councils, and especially against ethnic minorities, LGBT community and other oppressed groups (fascists).
Now, as far as passive dissent is concerned, there is really no need to censor their views because they are well known. Although, there is the issue of deliberate manipulation and outright fabrication of "events", which would warrant their removal from the position which affords them the ability to air their views. Just like slander is punishable by law nowadays.

Does this make you happy?

[Aspiring Humanist]

Refusal to participate in elections just means we refuse to participate in rigged bourgeois politics that are useless because the elections are decided well before the actual election, and it puts off the message that we want to participate in the current government or that we approve of the way things are run.
Thats how I see it anyhow, and I'm a pseudo-anarcho-communist

[The Teacher]

To reiterate my point from the dissent thread, one which you never bothered to address, why would revolutionaries bother accomodating the wishes of the very same people who would command their labour, exploit them and alienate them from the resources of the decision making process which is integral to their conditions of life and work?

And yes, there would be coercion in relation to teh rich (now you happy?) who resist the measures undertaken by associated workers.
In my opinion, dissent without action is futile and it is not to be expected. Therefore, I'd advocate prison sentences for those who take up arms or any other kind of violence against the revolutionary workers' councils, and especially against ethnic minorities, LGBT community and other oppressed groups (fascists).
Now, as far as passive dissent is concerned, there is really no need to censor their views because they are well known. Although, there is the issue of deliberate manipulation and outright fabrication of "events", which would warrant their removal from the position which affords them the ability to air their views. Just like slander is punishable by law nowadays.

Does this make you happy?

Yes. You've given an actual answer that takes into account the reality of what a revolution would look like. So yes, I'm very happy.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes. You've given an actual answer that takes into account the reality of what a revolution would look like. So yes, I'm very happy.
OK, is that something which you'd object to (the situation itself and my advocacy of coercive measures, though not outright repression and indiscriminate murder; also I wouldn't advocate the death sentence except in war time).


Refusal to participate in elections just means we refuse to participate in rigged bourgeois politics that are useless because the elections are decided well before the actual election, and it puts off the message that we want to participate in the current government or that we approve of the way things are run.
Thats how I see it anyhow, and I'm a pseudo-anarcho-communist
Elections are not the only way to force the ruling class to concede to reforms demands, at least not in boom times. That's the point OP misses.

[Dumb]

Child labor laws
Minimum wage laws
40 hour work week
SSI

Child labor? It's rampant in agriculture, even in so-called "first world" countries. The minimum wage doesn't need to get assaulted - you just have to keep it at its current level and wait for inflation to do the trick on the capitalist's behalf. SSI - that's been on the chopping block for years and to this day remains under threat from Democrats as well as Republicans.

And the 40-hour work week? 50 is more typical at my current job, and it's hardly unheard of to do 55 or even 60 on a regular basis. This calendar year, in fact, I've done 40 hours for maybe two pay periods out of twelve.

This is the problem with social democratic (or social liberal) reforms. They're concessions the ruling class grants when times are good and they're feeling generous. These reforms, however, are so easy to work around, so easy to water down or avoid outright, and there's no guarantee that they'll even still be around tomorrow. That's what happens when you take for granted that capital and the state will always - and should always - have power over our lives.

[The Teacher]

Do you not get overtime pay? As for rampant child labor, do you mean migrant workers or a kid helping his dad with the tractor?

I never said that capital and the state should have power over our lives. I just don't see an alternative. "The revolution" will eventually lead to a new ruling class and a new state. If that's the case, the best idea is to focus on reducing the power of capital and the state and keeping both to a minimum

[Thirsty Crow]

I never said that capital and the state should have power over our lives. I just don't see an alternative. "The revolution" will eventually lead to a new ruling class and a new state. If that's the case, the best idea is to focus on reducing the power of capital and the state and keeping both to a minimum
Yes, you confirm that the state and capital should have power over our lives since you in fact erase any kind of a possibility for that being different. In fact, you didn't say that it should be so, but rather that we are better off abandoning the notion of possibility (the "should") whatsoever. In that way, you're effectively robbing yourself of any kind of power, be it merely imaginative.
Fatalism at its worst.

Also, I suppose that you base your fatalistic outlook on the Soviet experience. Now try to imagine that you are French and that you've been born at the time of Napoleon's rule, preceeded by an incredible disruption of the political and social order that we call the French Revolution. I'd bet that you'd dance to the very same tune, it's pointless and futile.

[The Teacher]

Yes, you confirm that the state and capital should have power over our lives since you in fact erase any kind of a possibility for that being different. In fact, you didn't say that it should be so, but rather that we are better off abandoning the notion of possibility (the "should") whatsoever. In that way, you're effectively robbing yourself of any kind of power, be it merely imaginative.
Fatalism at its worst.

Also, I suppose that you base your fatalistic outlook on the Soviet experience. Now try to imagine that you are French and that you've been born at the time of Napoleon's rule, preceeded by an incredible disruption of the political and social order that we call the French Revolution. I'd bet that you'd dance to the very same tune, it's pointless and futile.

Please don't make assumptions. My question is merely this; is you're revolution worth fighting? In order to be worth it the following conditions have to be met.

1. It has to have a good chance of winning.
2. The system put in place afterwards is superior to what came before.
3. In order to be a superior system it must allow for the maximum amount of political and economic freedom.

If these conditions are not met then the revolution is no good and the only option available is to continue the never ending push back against the existing system.

[Thirsty Crow]

Please don't make assumptions. My question is merely this; is you're revolution worth fighting? In order to be worth it the following conditions have to be met.

1. It has to have a good chance of winning.
2. The system put in place afterwards is superior to what came before.
3. In order to be a superior system it must allow for the maximum amount of political and economic freedom.

If these conditions are not met then the revolution is no good and the only option available is to continue the never ending push back against the existing system.
I did not make any assumptions. I didn't assume that you think that capital and the state are here to say - it was you who said that.

And now it seems that you do not hold that opinion as a matter of conviction. Make up your mind, is it possible to topple the state as it exists, and along with it to transcend capital as a social relation?

As far as your points are concerned:

1) I don't know what kind of a situation there will be once a massive rupture within the fabric of the existing order is made.

2) Superior by which criteria? And yeah, I'd think that communism is in any way superior to capitalism

3) maximum amount of economic freedom? What does that even mean, except that it represents almost empty sloganeering? Also, I'd argue that workers' councils and territorial councils democracy transcends political "freedom" characteristic of capitalist societies.

[The Teacher]

You assumed that my position was based on the failure of the USSR. It is not.

To explain my definition of economic freedom: the ability to own the largest possible share of things created by your own labor. Does that clear it up? Again, I am not claiming to be expet at this type of terminology.

I would agree that a direct democracy or a local council offers superior freedom than that of a centralized political system like a national government.

[RadioRaheem84]

I never said that capital and the state should have power over our lives. I just don't see an alternative. "The revolution" will eventually lead to a new ruling class and a new state. If that's the case, the best idea is to focus on reducing the power of capital and the state and keeping both to a minimum

How I see the social democratic movement and the people involved in propagating it:

This is the whole reason why I abandoned social democracy or progressive liberalism. This defeatist notion and capitulation to the social order is such a cop out.
It is this idea that it's vulgar to be so damn anti-establishment and that upper middle class educated yuppies do not want to go against their rich friend who started up a hedge fund or business and thinks they can be reasoned with.

They take the idea of revolution or total dissent with the system and personalize it thinking that it means violence against their friends and neighbors. That is why they're so damn enamored with compromised political philosophies like social democracy or progressive liberalism.

They don't get that the system compels people to do things they otherwise wouldn't do and it compels them to fully follow the dictates of their material interests. They do not get that the people at the top will not compromise and if they do, it will not last, especially in times of crisis, which the system itself is prone to.

So like what was so eloquently put in the Monthly Review, "Listen Keynesians, (soc dems), it's still the system".

http://monthlyreview.org/2010/04/01/listen-keynesians-its-the-system-response-to-palley

Think systemically, The Teacher.

[Thirsty Crow]

You assumed that my position was based on the failure of the USSR. It is not.OK, but that's hardly relevant to the issue of fatalism.
Though, and I'm going to be frank, it's even worse if you don't base your opinion on the Soviet experience (under the condition that you do in fact hold that opinion).


To explain my definition of economic freedom: the ability to own the largest possible share of things created by your own labor. Does that clear it up? Again, I am not claiming to be expet at this type of terminology.I don't care for terminology, but rather for clarity.
Yes, economic freedom in communism would exceed that under capitalism. The productive powers would also be released from its fetters in the form of capitalist productive relations which hinder their development according to human needs. One example would be the possibility of automation of jobs deemed dangerous or degrading.
Though, there's another thing: we can also inspect the dimension of economic freedom from the necessity for alienated labour.

But I'd like to point out something: when it comes to the term "economic freedom", some people may take it to mean "freedom for private economic initiative". In fact, I think that's the dominant usage of the term, but it really does not matter since it's most useful to offer an explanation so that misunderstanding does not arise.


I would agree that a direct democracy or a local council offers superior freedom than that of a centralized political system like a national government.OK.

Does this answer your three points?
If not, what kind of an answer, what kind of "evidence" would you require?

[The Teacher]

So you're certain that the system put in place after the revolution will be free from the flaws of the current system? Because I have a fair notion that someone will try to tilt the new system in their favor, thereby forming a new ruling class

[The Teacher]

Mennochio,

I still don't see that this revolution of yours would be winnable, nor am I certain that its worth fighting for in the first place. The idea sounds good but what if a country (or the whole world) goes through the horror and pain of a revolution only to end up right back in the same place they started, or worse? You brought up the USSR, okay lets talk about that. Can you claim that the Soviet workers were not oppressed? No, of course no one could make an argument like that. And even if you did, the Soviet Union failed and now Russia is one of the worst capitalist regimes in the world. No political or economic freedom.

So what stops this next revolution from going down the same path?

[Franz Fanonipants]

So you're certain that the system put in place after the revolution will be free from the flaws of the current system? Because I have a fair notion that someone will try to tilt the new system in their favor, thereby forming a new ruling class

you're eating up capitalist lies about "human nature" pretty readily comrade. this is probably why you got restricted.

e. which isn't to say anything will be free of flaws, but rather, the flaws exist because of the economic mode.

e. of e. marxian thought isn't utopian.

[Sam_b]

yawn.

[The Teacher]

So, no one has ever used a revolutionary movement to set themselves up in a position of power and then betray any pretense of having ideals? Seriously? Is that not the story of every two bit third world dictator, not to mention a whole litany of Soviet leaders, and more?

The blood hadn't dried from the US revolution before the Alien and Sedition act was written.

[Thirsty Crow]

So you're certain that the system put in place after the revolution will be free from the flaws of the current system? Because I have a fair notion that someone will try to tilt the new system in their favor, thereby forming a new ruling class
A ruling class has historically been formed on the basis of a specific group's relation to the means of production. A ruling class cannot exist if there is no basis for the exploitation of other people's labour and command over others' by means of specific political institutions, and these have occured at the heart of the very social organization.

I can't see how could I vouch for the "perfection" of social organization which will transcend capitalism. Though, I can say I'm pretty darn sure that, under the condition of worldwide, not necessarily simultaneous, revolution of and for the working class, specific conditions endemic to capitalism will be eradicated, though not overnight and not easily (as with a magic wand).

But how can I argue against your gut feeling which you don't even want to explain and explicate.

[Franz Fanonipants]

So, no one has ever used a revolutionary movement to set themselves up in a position of power and then betray any pretense of having ideals? Seriously? Is that not the story of every two bit third world dictator, not to mention a whole litany of Soviet leaders, and more?

The blood hadn't dried from the US revolution before the Alien and Sedition act was written.

more often than not the situation that you've described has helped the workers more than hurt them. you can shout DICTATOR at fidel until you're blue in the fucking face but it doesn't change the fact that Cuba went from basically chattel slavery to a highly-educated and developed society within 20 years of the Cuban revolution.

and fuck the US "revolution." this is your fucking problem, you're too invested in liberal worship of ideas to make any meaningful distinction between historical situations. a revolution is not equal to all other revolutions. a "dictator" is not equal to all other dictators. etc.

[human strike]

I was hoping the OP would say "because I'm anti-political." Hey-ho.

[The Teacher]

more often than not the situation that you've described has helped the workers more than hurt them. you can shout DICTATOR at fidel until you're blue in the fucking face but it doesn't change the fact that Cuba went from basically chattel slavery to a highly-educated and developed society within 20 years of the Cuban revolution.

and fuck the US "revolution." this is your fucking problem, you're too invested in liberal worship of ideas to make any meaningful distinction between historical situations. a revolution is not equal to all other revolutions. a "dictator" is not equal to all other dictators. etc.

All dictators are equally repellent. But yes, revolutions are not equal. In fact most of them have been crap. Many of them leave a country in the hand of a maniac like Pol Pot.

[Franz Fanonipants]

All dictators are equally repellent.

your a liberal and i can do nothing for you.

[The Teacher]

For example, what if the revolution puts the means of production into the hands of a political elite? Are they not capitalists under a new name?

[The Teacher]

your a liberal and i can do nothing for you.

You want to live under a police state. I can't do anything for you. I'm sure you might say that the US is a police state. It isn't great, but things can get a lot worse. When you go to protests here the police shoot you with rubber bullets, not lead. Thats a big difference.

[RadioRaheem84]

So, no one has ever used a revolutionary movement to set themselves up in a position of power and then betray any pretense of having ideals? Seriously? Is that not the story of every two bit third world dictator, not to mention a whole litany of Soviet leaders, and more?

The blood hadn't dried from the US revolution before the Alien and Sedition act was written.

Good god, and you're a teacher?

The Russian Revolution was met with Civil war, terrorism, and foreign invasion.

Do you not consider the historical material conditions people go through under revolution?

What would the US look like if at the advent of the revolution, revolution, WWI, the Civil War and then WWII happened in the span of twenty years?

Since it's inception, the USSR did not know one day of peace. You can say the same for most of the revolutions of the 20th century.

Do you put this much effort in critiquing liberal democracy and calling it a failure considering that the European nations rocked back and forth between Republicanism and Monarchy, to Fascism and then back?

The French Revolution was met with internal dissension, and foreign onslaught and then culminated with an autocrat. Would you say that the French Revolution or liberal democracy is then a failure too?

Would you say that it was just all due to corruption? The concept of "people getting corrupt for power sake" is such a joke.

[RadioRaheem84]

When you go to protests here the police shoot you with rubber bullets, not lead. Thats a big difference.

:laugh:

And we also do not torture POWs or enemies of the State......here on American soil. We send them overseas to secret detention centers.

But it could be worse.....:rolleyes:

[The Teacher]

Good god, and you're a teacher?

The Russian Revolution was met with Civil war, terrorism, and foreign invasion.

Do you not consider the historical material conditions people go through under revolution?

What would the US look like if at the advent of the revolution, revolution, WWI, the Civil War and then WWII happened in the span of twenty years?

Since it's inception, the USSR did not know one day of peace. You can say the same for most of the revolutions of the 20th century.

Do you put this much effort in critiquing liberal democracy and calling it a failure considering that the European nations rocked back and forth between Republicanism and Monarchy, to Fascism and then back?

The French Revolution was met with internal dissension, and foreign onslaught and then culminated with an autocrat. Would you say that the French Revolution or liberal democracy is then a failure too?

Would you say that it was just all due to corruption? The concept of "people getting corrupt for power sake" is such a joke.

The French revolution was a failure. Maybe a promising start but look where it ended up! And yes, the history of revolutions in the modern era is nothing but a list of revolt and counter revolt, foreign intervention, full scale civil wars and mass murder.

[RadioRaheem84]

The French revolution was a failure. Maybe a promising start but look where it ended up! And yes, the history of revolutions in the modern era is nothing but a list of revolt and counter revolt, foreign intervention, full scale civil wars and mass murder.

In the modern era? As in the 20th century? :confused:

[The Teacher]

:laugh:

And we also do not torture POWs or enemies of the State......here on American soil. We send them overseas to secret detention centers.

But it could be worse.....:rolleyes:

It could be worse, someone could be kicking down your door and taking you away to be tortured.

[Impulse97]

For example, what if the revolution puts the means of production into the hands of a political elite? Are they not capitalists under a new name?

a.k.a J.V.Stalin.

[RadioRaheem84]

It could be worse, someone could be kicking down your door and taking you away to be tortured.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States#Khale d_Masri_case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

[Sam_b]

yawn

[Luís Henrique]

But there are a few things that I just can't be associated with and, for these reasons, I will be visiting this part of the net very infrequently, if at all. In case you are interested (many of you probably aren't) I would like to quickly talk about my reasons for rejecting leftism as a whole.

So let me address your objections.


1. The "more left than thou" attitude. Got enough of that at Antioch.

This is indeed quite repulsive. But, if anything, it is quite certainly an anti-leftist attitude. It stems from the lack of actual contact of most of the left with the working class - or, in other words, from the fact that the right is triumphant, and the left, isolated.


2. Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression.

I must disagree. Capitalism is a historical phenomenon, no less than slavery or serfdom. Would you, if you lived in the 10th Century, or in the 5th BC, say that serfdom or slavery were like mythical beasts, that can't be killed, only fought and contained?

It seems that your view is the "absolutist" one, that you take capitalism, or government, and perhaps other historical phenomena, as a-historical absolutes, natural or divine givens.


3. Refusal to participate in elections. What I've heard a lot about on this site is "we fight tooth and nail for reform, but its stupid and pointless" no one fights tooth and nail for something that they think is useless.

Well, I am a leftist, and I certainly participate in elections. I vote, I discuss candidacies, support and campaign for some and against others.


4. No concern for actual working class people. Per above, living wage laws healthcare and education are not stupid. They actually help working families in the here and now. If the far left actually cared about "workers" then this would be the first and foremost mission. If the left cared about the working class, we would support you. You don't care about us, so we say screw it, we'll do it ourselves.

Again, these views may or may not be prevalent here, but they certainly are not leftist views. A leftist organisation necessarily fights for better wages, for improved labour laws, for improved healthcare and education, etc. We just don't think of these things as the actual end of our struggle, because we believe that they will be necessarily undone if the system as a whole isn't changed.


5. Stalism. Seriously? How are these people different from neo-nazis? Worshiping a mass murderer? Not only disgusting but completely counter productive.

Stalinism (I suppose this is what you meant) is a fringe tendency in the left. Of course, they differ a lot from neo-nazis, starting by the fact that they don't use "race" as a category, but they are certainly noxious to the left.


6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.

Such as?

I have read The Capital, and understood it quite clearly. And since I am not much more intelligent than you, it follows that you would understand it if you tried.


Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?

No, but "bourgeois" and "rich person" are different concepts. A bourgeois is someone who owns or otherwise controls means of production, while a rich person is merely someone who has a lot of money. Evidently there is a lot of overlapping, but that's another issue.


7. Per 5, far too many people have a flippant attitude in regards to violence. These people probably haven't witnessed real violence and/or don't have anyone the care about.

Yes, this is a problem (which is not even restricted to Stalinists; a lot of anarchists display a similar attitude, with "fun" replacing for "historically necessary"), and it certainly stems from the same source: lack of actual contact with the working class and its struggles. Violence is a fact of life, and pretending it doesn't exist it is quite dangerous, but it is nothing to be glorified.


8. No respect for individual rights. If they don't agree with us then they can hit the road (or the firing squad, per 5 and 7). Our way or nothing.

This is again an anti-leftist attitude. An actual leftist organisation respects individual rights, both in its program (as something that must be respected, upheld, and expanded under our hegemony) and in its practice (meaning freedom of dissent internally).


9. Per above, group think, lack of constructive criticism, and a complete lack of respect for dissenting opinions. What if your way of thinking isn't the only one? Maybe leftism is wrong? I don't really think so but what if? Can we afford to avoid even discussing it?

Of course there are many different ways of thinking. Some of them include support for inequality, for restriction of freedom, or both. Those are usually called "rightism". May be they are correct, it is a possibility. The only way to demonstrate that, however, is to actually fight against inequality and oppression; if we lose, they are right, if we win, we have proved them wrong.


10. Knee jerk reaction to anything that isn't ultra-double plus leftist as being reactionary, bussie, fascist, or (shudder) liberal.

I don't think this is a fair analysis. There are things that are reactionary, and some that are even fascist (no, Obama, the Republican Party, Thatcherite social security cuts, none of that is "fascist"). And we do oppose liberalism. To us, it is an authoritarian and inequalitarian political line, and so we oppose it. It doesn't mean that everything we disagree with is liberal, nor that we cannot make common front with liberals against conservatives or fascists on specific issues.


11. Support for every murdering dictator who opposes "the west"

This isn't true of most of the left. Even here, we have quite harsh debates between those who support, let's say, Gaddafy, because he "opposes" (that's a lie) "the West" (this is a meaningless concept), those who want to see him gone, and those who think we shouldn't have a stake at that.

On the other hand, we oppose, and should do it, those who call everyone who opposes "the West" a "murdering dictator", even when s/he clearly isn't one. Gaddafy is a murderous dictator, and by no means a socialist or a leftist. Chavez may not be a leftist or a socialist, but a murderous (or otherwise) dictator he is not.

Luís Henrique

[Leftsolidarity]

I came to this forum for two reasons; to learn more about the fringe left and ask questions to judge how much my own views line up with leftism and second, well, right wingers piss me off.


Fringe?



I would like to quickly talk about my reasons for rejecting leftism as a whole.


Why would some annoying people on a website make you reject "leftism" as a whole? What does that make you?



1. The "more left than thou" attitude. Got enough of that at Antioch.


Indeed that is annoying but you get that anywhere about anything. This is also just a website where there are some annoying people.



2. Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression.


*mega-facepalm* The state is a mythical beast? So do the police and military not exist? The state at points in time never even existed so it is clearly not some ever-lasting "mythical beast". Now onto capitalism, are you serious? Capitalism is fairly new is retrospect and every past system has been destroyed and replaced so why do you think capitalism is so special? You have some great defeatism going for you.




3. Refusal to participate in elections. What I've heard a lot about on this site is "we fight tooth and nail for reform, but its stupid and pointless" no one fights tooth and nail for something that they think is useless.


Not true. There are leftists who participate strongly in elections (DSA). You are on a site for REVOLUTIONARY leftists so obviously they are not going to care too much about elections. This was already discussed on one of your previous threads.



4. No concern for actual working class people. Per above, living wage laws healthcare and education are not stupid. They actually help working families in the here and now. If the far left actually cared about "workers" then this would be the first and foremost mission. If the left cared about the working class, we would support you. You don't care about us, so we say screw it, we'll do it ourselves.


I refer you to the opening sentences in the chapter "Proletarians and Communists" from The Communist Manifesto. It talks about how communists (the "left") is not seperate from the workers but we are the workers. We are workers/students with left-wing ideals.



5. Stalism. Seriously? How are these people different from neo-nazis? Worshiping a mass murderer? Not only disgusting but completely counter productive.


The vast majority of leftists don't associate themselves with Stalin at all.



6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.
Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?


Would you like to give an example or use a strawman? That has also been talked about in a previous thread. Bourgeoisie and "rich people" are not exactly interchangable if you are trying to have an in-depth conversation with another leftist. Though for the most part when I'm out talking to people or handing stuff out on the street I use vocabulary that the majority of people can understand.



7. Per 5, far too many people have a flippant attitude in regards to violence. These people probably haven't witnessed real violence and/or don't have anyone the care about.


There are a number of pacifists on the left and I would say the majority view it as a last resort.



8. No respect for individual rights. If they don't agree with us then they can hit the road (or the firing squad, per 5 and 7). Our way or nothing.


*strawman alert*
What individual rights are you even talking about??



9. Per above, group think, lack of constructive criticism, and a complete lack of respect for dissenting opinions. What if your way of thinking isn't the only one? Maybe leftism is wrong? I don't really think so but what if? Can we afford to avoid even discussing it?


I think there is actually a massive amount of criticism even on just this one website.



10. Knee jerk reaction to anything that isn't ultra-double plus leftist as being reactionary, bussie, fascist, or (shudder) liberal.


I mostly agree but most of the things you say are liberal.



11. Support for every murdering dictator who opposes "the west"


That's only a small percent and they come from the self-describe "anti-imperialists". Even though any true leftist should be anti-imperialist whoever describes themselves as just that is usually one of the dictator/genocide apologists who do not represent the views of everyone on the left.

[Dumb]

The French revolution was a failure. Maybe a promising start but look where it ended up! And yes, the history of revolutions in the modern era is nothing but a list of revolt and counter revolt, foreign intervention, full scale civil wars and mass murder.

That was precisely the point. The French Revolution was a failure, but its mission - to end feudalism, and establish liberal democracy - has been an unmitigated success throughout wide swaths of the planet. Moreover, a very persuasive analogy has been drawn between you and the people who, in the 1810s, decried the hopelessness of ever propagating liberal democracy. If the French Revolution failed, how would any other revolution succeed in bringing about liberal democracy?

This has been brought up before, but where you part ways from most of us is in your portrayal of the status quo as if it were permanent. Humanity has existed for anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 years (6,000 if you're a biblical literalist - which I doubt, but still makes the subsequent math kind of fun). Liberal democracy/liberalism, on the other hand, has only been a viable political movement since the Enlightenment - so let's say 300 years. That ranges from 0.15% to a (very, very unlikely) maximum of 5% of the history of humanity.

The lives we lead now, and the world in which we live those lives, are but a speck in the history of homo sapiens. I mean this as a sincere question, and will be interested in reading your answer: what makes you think this era, this status quo, is somehow more permanent than any other era that came before?

[Tim Finnegan]

The French revolution was a failure. Maybe a promising start but look where it ended up!
That is a grossly over-simplistic analysis.

[ComradeMan]

The French Revolution?

It's too early to say.
Zhou Enlai

[human strike]

I came to this forum for two reasons; to learn more about the fringe left and ask questions to judge how much my own views line up with leftism and second, well, right wingers piss me off.

I was initially excited, for I am an ardent anti-fascist and a very left leaning person in general. But there are a few things that I just can't be associated with and, for these reasons, I will be visiting this part of the net very infrequently, if at all. In case you are interested (many of you probably aren't) I would like to quickly talk about my reasons for rejecting leftism as a whole.

1. The "more left than thou" attitude. Got enough of that at Antioch.

2. Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression.

3. Refusal to participate in elections. What I've heard a lot about on this site is "we fight tooth and nail for reform, but its stupid and pointless" no one fights tooth and nail for something that they think is useless.

4. No concern for actual working class people. Per above, living wage laws healthcare and education are not stupid. They actually help working families in the here and now. If the far left actually cared about "workers" then this would be the first and foremost mission. If the left cared about the working class, we would support you. You don't care about us, so we say screw it, we'll do it ourselves.

5. Stalism. Seriously? How are these people different from neo-nazis? Worshiping a mass murderer? Not only disgusting but completely counter productive.

6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.
Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"?

7. Per 5, far too many people have a flippant attitude in regards to violence. These people probably haven't witnessed real violence and/or don't have anyone the care about.

8. No respect for individual rights. If they don't agree with us then they can hit the road (or the firing squad, per 5 and 7). Our way or nothing.

9. Per above, group think, lack of constructive criticism, and a complete lack of respect for dissenting opinions. What if your way of thinking isn't the only one? Maybe leftism is wrong? I don't really think so but what if? Can we afford to avoid even discussing it?

10. Knee jerk reaction to anything that isn't ultra-double plus leftist as being reactionary, bussie, fascist, or (shudder) liberal.

11. Support for every murdering dictator who opposes "the west"

That being said I've met some great people on this forum and witnessed some interesting debates. Best wishes to everyone.

1. Because that's a prerequisite of being a revolutionary anti-capitalist?
2. You didn't say that you're a superstitious person. Capital and the state (arguably the distinction between the two isn't necessary but let's go with it anyway) are not concepts, they are forms of social relations. These social relations are broken down all the time, everyday by millions of people to varying degrees, usually only on a small scale but sometimes on a big scale. Whether it be absenteeism or a black bloc trashing a bank, these are forms of insubordination or at the very least non-subordination. When we do these things we negate capital. Capitalism there and then no longer exists because the social relations are broken. Revolution is all about everyday struggle (or it should be IMHO). Even if you are right in saying that capitalism cannot be overthrown for good (though you've provided no argument backing that statement up), frankly, I don't care - it makes little difference to me.
3. I don't fight tooth and nail for reform, I fight tooth and nail for revolution.
4. In my opinion it is not the job of revolutionaries to fight on the behalf of the working class, but to fight alongside them. Only the working class can liberate the working class. And let us not forget, the working class' most major concern is work, not working conditions. The abolition of work should be our primary mission.
5. Surely most people on revleft absolutely reject Stalinism?If I had my way they wouldn't be allowed on this forum.
6. Most of my favourite revolutionary texts were written in the last few decades. And anyway, a theory's age does not necessarily effect its accuracy. Do you accept the theory of gravity? You know that's over 300 years old, right?
7. A "leftist" can hold any view on violence - this point is irrelevant.
8. Bullshit. "Freedom is the freedom of dissenters." - Rosa Luxemburg. I think most people on this forum would accept the premise of the above quote.
9. See above.
10. I almost wish that were true, but it isn't.
11. I think all the anti-statists here might take exception to this...

To summarise then; you like to heinously generalise, and you don't like Stalinists. Well, that's cool, I don't like Stalinists either. Perhaps we could team up?

[Franz Fanonipants]

op i think the bottom line is you're probably a white man of comfortable means for whom a "revolution" accompanied by a forcible dismantling of capitalism is unattractive cus it would be you who might be held accountable.

[Drosophila]

nah

yah

[MustCrushCapitalism]

5. Stalism. Seriously? How are these people different from neo-nazis? Worshiping a mass murderer? Not only disgusting but completely counter productive.

I hate it when right-wingers mistake all Socialists for Stalinists. What about Trots? :rolleyes:

[hatzel]

op i think the bottom line is you're probably a white man of comfortable means for whom a "revolution" accompanied by a forcible dismantling of capitalism is unattractive cus it would be you who might be held accountable.

If an individual's skin colour has any bearing on whether or not they are 'held accountable' during and/or after the revolution then I might have to join the Teacher in not being a leftist...

[Franz Fanonipants]

If an individual's skin colour has any bearing on whether or not they are 'held accountable' during and/or after the revolution then I might have to join the Teacher in not being a leftist...

lol bro i don't think i'll miss you

p.s. race is a mat'l condition directly correlated to class in post-colonial societies hth

[The Man]

5. Stalism. Seriously? How are these people different from neo-nazis? Worshiping a mass murderer? Not only disgusting but completely counter productive.


I laughed. I love how we continuously 'worship' Stalin, like he is a god. How are we different then Neo-Nazis? First of all, were Communists, not Fascist assholes. Second of all, We don't hate people's races or ethnicities... If you think that Stalin actually caused the 1934 Ukrainian famine, then I suggest you read a bit more.

(I keep saying this) Now if your talking about the political purges, you have to look at the type of society that the USSR was in from a materialist perspective. They were up against the world, they were in threat of spies/intruders that were Fascist, They almost got completely invaded by Hitler. So the government was probably really paranoid (Like any other government would be.)

[ComradeMan]

I laughed. I love how we continuously 'worship' Stalin, like he is a god. How are we different then Neo-Nazis? First of all, were Communists, not Fascist assholes. Second of all, We don't hate people's races or ethnicities... If you think that Stalin actually caused the 1934 Ukrainian famine, then I suggest you read a bit more.

(I keep saying this) Now if your talking about the political purges, you have to look at the type of society that the USSR was in from a materialist perspective. They were up against the world, they were in threat of spies/intruders that were Fascist, They almost got completely invaded by Hitler. So the government was probably really paranoid (Like any other government would be.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#Famines

Famines

...Most modern scholars agree that the famine was caused by the policies of the government of the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) under Stalin, rather than by natural reasons.[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-63) According to Alan Bullock, "the total Soviet grain crop was no worse than that of 1931 ... it was not a crop failure but the excessive demands of the state, ruthlessly enforced, that cost the lives of as many as five million Ukrainian peasants." Stalin refused to release large grain reserves that could have alleviated the famine, while continuing to export grain; he was convinced that the Ukrainian peasants had hidden grain away, and strictly enforced draconian new collective-farm theft laws in response.[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-64)[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-davies-wheatcroft-2004-65) Other historians hold it was largely the insufficient harvests of 1931 and 1932 caused by a variety of natural disasters that resulted in famine, with the successful harvest of 1933 ending the famine.[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-66) Soviet and other historians have argued that the rapid collectivization of agriculture was necessary in order to achieve an equally rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union and ultimately win World War II. Alec Nove (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Nove) claims that the Soviet Union industrialized in spite of, rather than because of, its collectivized agriculture.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
The USSR also experienced a major famine in 1947 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Famine_of_1947) as a result of war damage and severe droughts, but economist Michael Ellman argues that it could have been prevented if the government did not mismanage its grain reserves. The famine cost an estimated 1 to 1.5 million lives as well as secondary population losses due to reduced fertility.[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-67)


Also:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-67)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-67)
http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/findings.html (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-67)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-67)

[The Man]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#Famines

Famines

...Most modern scholars agree that the famine was caused by the policies of the government of the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) under Stalin, rather than by natural reasons.[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-63) According to Alan Bullock, "the total Soviet grain crop was no worse than that of 1931 ... it was not a crop failure but the excessive demands of the state, ruthlessly enforced, that cost the lives of as many as five million Ukrainian peasants." Stalin refused to release large grain reserves that could have alleviated the famine, while continuing to export grain; he was convinced that the Ukrainian peasants had hidden grain away, and strictly enforced draconian new collective-farm theft laws in response.[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-64)[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-davies-wheatcroft-2004-65) Other historians hold it was largely the insufficient harvests of 1931 and 1932 caused by a variety of natural disasters that resulted in famine, with the successful harvest of 1933 ending the famine.[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-66) Soviet and other historians have argued that the rapid collectivization of agriculture was necessary in order to achieve an equally rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union and ultimately win World War II. Alec Nove (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Nove) claims that the Soviet Union industrialized in spite of, rather than because of, its collectivized agriculture.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
The USSR also experienced a major famine in 1947 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Famine_of_1947) as a result of war damage and severe droughts, but economist Michael Ellman argues that it could have been prevented if the government did not mismanage its grain reserves. The famine cost an estimated 1 to 1.5 million lives as well as secondary population losses due to reduced fertility.[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-67)


Also:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-67)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-67)
http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/findings.html (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-67)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#cite_note-67)


The myth concerning the famine in the Ukraine

One of the first campaigns of the Hearst press against the Soviet Union revolved round the question of the millions alleged to have died as a result of the Ukraine famine. This campaign began on 8 February 1935 with a front-page headline in the Chicago American '6 million people die of hunger in the Soviet Union'. Using material supplied by Nazi Germany, William Hearst, the press baron and Nazi sympathiser, began to publish fabricated stories about a genocide which was supposed to have been deliberately perpetrated by the Bolsheviks and had caused several million to die of starvation in the Ukraine. The truth of the matter was altogether different. In fact what took place in the Soviet Union at the beginning of the 1930s was a major class struggle in which poor landless peasants had risen up against the rich landowners, the kulaks, and had begun a struggle for collectivisation, a struggle to form kolkhozes.

This great class struggle, involving directly or indirectly some 120 million peasants, certainly gave rise to instability in agricultural production and food shortages in some regions. Lack of food did weaken people, which in turn led to an increase in the number falling victim to epidemic diseases. These diseases were at that time regrettably common throughout the world. Between 1918 and 1920 an epidemic of Spanish flu caused the death of 20 million people in the US and Europe, but nobody accused the governments of these countries of killing their own citizens. The fact is that there was nothing these government could do in the face of epidemics of this kind. It was only with the development of penicillin during the second world war, that it became possible for such epidemics to be effectively contained. This did not become generally available until towards the end of the 1940s.

The Hearst press articles asserting that millions were dying of famine in the Ukraine - a famine supposedly deliberately provoked by the communists - went into graphic and lurid detail. The Hearst press used every means possible to make their lies seem like the truth, and succeeded in causing public opinion in the capitalist countries to turn sharply against the Soviet Union. This was the origin of the first giant myth manufactured alleging millions were dying in the Soviet Union. In the wave of protests against the supposedly communist-provoked famine which the Western press unleashed, nobody was interested in listening to the Soviet Union's denials and complete exposure of the Hearst press lies, a situation which prevailed from 1934 until 1987! For more than 50 years several generations of people the world over were brought up on a diet of these slanders to harbour a negative view of socialism in the Soviet Union.

The Hearst mass media empire in 1998

William Hearst died in 1951 at his house in Beverly Hills, California. Hearst left behind him a mass-media empire which to this day continues to spread his reactionary message throughout the world. The Hearst Corporation is one of the largest enterprises in the world, incorporating more that 100 companies and employing 15,000 people. The Hearst empire today comprises magazines, books, radio, TV, cable TV, news agencies and multimedia.

52 years before the truth emerges

The Nazi disinformation campaign about the Ukraine did not die with the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War. The Nazi lies were taken over by the CIA and MI5, and were always guaranteed a prominent place in the propaganda war against the Soviet Union. The McCarthyite anti-communist witch hunts after the Second World War also thrived on the tales of the millions who died of starvation in the Ukraine. In 1953 a book on this subject was published in the US. This book was entitled 'Black Deeds of the Kremlin'. Its publication was financed by Ukrainian refugees in the US, people who had collaborated with the Nazis in the Second World War and to whom the American government gave political asylum, presenting them to the world as 'democrats'.

When Reagan was elected to the US Presidency and began his 1980s anti-communist crusade, propaganda about the millions who died in the Ukraine was again revived. In 1984 a Harvard professor published a book called 'Human Life in Russia' which repeated all the false information produced by the Hearst press in 1934. In 1984, then, we were finding Nazi lies and falsifications dating from the 1930s being revived, but this time under the respectable cloak of an American university. But this was not the end of it. In 1986 yet another book appeared on the subject, entitled 'Harvest of Sorrow', written by a former member of the British secret service, Robert Conquest, now a professor at Stamford University in California. For his 'work' on the book, Conquest received $80,000 from the Ukraine National Organization. This same organisation also paid for a film made in 1986 called 'Harvest of Despair', in which, inter alia, material from Conquest's book was used. By this time the number of people it was alleged in the US had lost their lives in the Ukraine through starvation had been upped to 15 million!

Nevertheless the millions said to have died of starvation according to the Hearst press in America, parroted in books and films, was completely false information. The Canadian journalist, Douglas Tottle, meticulously exposed the falsifications in his book 'Fraud, famine and fascism - the Ukrainian genocide myth from Hitler to Harvard', published in Toronto in 1987. Among other things, Tottle proved that the photographic material used, horrifying photographs of starving children, had been taken from 1922 publications at a time when millions of people did die from hunger and war conditions because eight foreign armies had invaded the Soviet Union during the Civil War of 1918-1921. Douglas Tottle gives the facts surrounding the reporting of the famine of 1934 and exposes the assorted lies published in the Hearst press. One journalist who had over a long period of time sent reports and photographs from supposed famine areas was Thomas Walter, a man who never set foot in the Ukraine and even in Moscow had spent but a bare five days. This fact was revealed by the journalist Louis Fisher, Moscow Correspondent of The Nation, an American newspaper. Fisher also revealed that the journalist M. Parrott, the real Hearst press correspondent in Moscow, had sent Hearst reports that were never published concerning the excellent harvest achieved by the Soviet Union in 1933 and on the Ukraine's advancement. Tottle proves as well that the journalist who wrote the reports on the alleged Ukrainian famine, 'Thomas Walker', was really called Robert Green and was a convict who had escaped from a state prison in Colorado! This Walker, or Green, was arrested when he returned to the US and when he appeared in court, he admitted that he had never been to the Ukraine. All the lies concerning millions dead of starvation in the Ukraine in the 1930s, in a famine supposedly engineered by Stalin only came to be unmasked in 1987! Hearst, the Nazi, the police agent Conquest and others had conned millions of people with their lies and fake reports. Even today the Nazi Hearst's stories are still being repeated in newly-published books written by authors in the pay of right-wing interests.

The Hearst press, having a monopolist position in many States of the US, and having news agencies all over the world, was the great megaphone of the Gestapo. In a world dominated by monopoly capital, it was possible for the Hearst press to transform Gestapo lies into 'truths' emitted from dozens of newspapers, radio stations and, later on, TV channels, the world over. When the Gestapo disappeared, this dirty propaganda war against socialism in the Soviet Union carried on regardless, albeit with the CIA as its new patron. The anti-communist campaigns of the American press were not scaled down in the slightest. Business continued as usual, first at the bidding of the Gestapo and then at the bidding of the CIA.

Source: Mario Sousa, Lies concerning the Soviet Union. Kommunisterna Parti (Marxist-Leninist)

[Tablo]

Only read the OP. Don't know what other responses are to this.


I came to this forum for two reasons; to learn more about the fringe left and ask questions to judge how much my own views line up with leftism and second, well, right wingers piss me off.

I was initially excited, for I am an ardent anti-fascist and a very left leaning person in general. But there are a few things that I just can't be associated with and, for these reasons, I will be visiting this part of the net very infrequently, if at all. In case you are interested (many of you probably aren't) I would like to quickly talk about my reasons for rejecting leftism as a whole.


1. The "more left than thou" attitude. Got enough of that at Antioch. But some tendencies really are more left than others. That is simply the way it is.


2. Absolutism. I think that things like government and capitalism aren't enemies you can fight, they are concepts. Like a ridiculous "war on drugs" or "war on terror" you can't win. Government and capitalism are like mythical beasts, they can't be killed, they can be fought and contained but never gotten rid of. In this manner the struggle is not toward a final goal, just a constant push against right wing oppression. Why can't capitalism go away? Past economic systems rose and collapsed. Btw, not even anarchists are anti-government. We support organization. What we oppose is the state, which is actually a recent creation in human history. City-states formed awhile ago(but in the total history of humanity are also recent), but nation-states are a very recent phenomenon. (See Louis XIV)


3. Refusal to participate in elections. What I've heard a lot about on this site is "we fight tooth and nail for reform, but its stupid and pointless" no one fights tooth and nail for something that they think is useless.Lots of far left people vote. I don't because I think it is useless. Voting doesn't make real changes. When positive reforms are made, it is because politicians and business men buckle to the pressure. Not be cause we voted in a different bourgeois politician.


4. No concern for actual working class people. Per above, living wage laws healthcare and education are not stupid. They actually help working families in the here and now. If the far left actually cared about "workers" then this would be the first and foremost mission. If the left cared about the working class, we would support you. You don't care about us, so we say screw it, we'll do it ourselves.Who says we don't care about living wages, healthcare, and education? I don't know what site you have been reading, but it doesn't sound like revleft. We think those things are great in the short term, but ultimately we want more substantial and permanent gains.


5. Stalism. Seriously? How are these people different from neo-nazis? Worshiping a mass murderer? Not only disgusting but completely counter productive.Not all leftists are of the authoritarian variety and some of them are more critical of the various "socialist" states than others.


6. Unintelligible books written a hundred years ago.
Come on, you guys really say bourgoise? Who talks like that? Would it kill you to say "rich people"? Bourgeoisie is a very specific economic term. Not all rich people are part of the bourgeoisie so it would be inaccurate to use the term "rich people".


7. Per 5, far too many people have a flippant attitude in regards to violence. These people probably haven't witnessed real violence and/or don't have anyone the care about.Not everyone here glorifies violence. I know some of the more immature members do, but most see it as last resort type stuff.


8. No respect for individual rights. If they don't agree with us then they can hit the road (or the firing squad, per 5 and 7). Our way or nothing. Most people here aren't like that so I feel like you're just trolling. I'm a strong believer in individual rights and I don't see how you so blatantly ignore the majority of people here who see the individual has the right to do whatever the fuck they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else.


9. Per above, group think, lack of constructive criticism, and a complete lack of respect for dissenting opinions. What if your way of thinking isn't the only one? Maybe leftism is wrong? I don't really think so but what if? Can we afford to avoid even discussing it? We discuss all the time. That's the point of this forum. Leftists are pretty critical of each other and have disagreements for very good reasons. We all have our own idea of how stuff should be done, but it doesn't matter what we think since Marxism and Anarchism are largely about democratic rule. Whatever course of action is taken will be that of the majority. Minority can join in or just go off and do their own thing.


10. Knee jerk reaction to anything that isn't ultra-double plus leftist as being reactionary, bussie, fascist, or (shudder) liberal.That's mostly because this site is meant for the far-left so people get annoyed and call others out when they post something not in line with the site's community.


11. Support for every murdering dictator who opposes "the west"Most members are not like this. You are grasping at straws and talking about 1 or 2 high activity members.


That being said I've met some great people on this forum and witnessed some interesting debates. Best wishes to everyone.Glad you liked it here. Sorry you completely ignored a large portion, if not the majority of the userbase.