A question about my political views

[DimSum]

So, the thing is I don't know how to define my political views and I want to know where to look for other people with opinions like mine so I want you people to tell me what's the correct name of my views and beliefs.

So I guess i should try to describe it.
I believe in gift economy instead of money.
I believe in the idea of a state, but not the way a state is today, direct democracy should replace prime ministers and/or presidents.
I believe in private property, but I think the atmosphere should be of mutual help.
The law should be more of guidelines so people will feel the law trusts them instead of being against them, people know that actions have consequences, they are not stupid.
Joining the military should be a choice (it is mandate here for at least three years) and the military should be only as self defense and the definition of self defense in that matter should be very specific (only when your state is attacked and lethal or non lethal force should be used only on the people attacking and not on citizens/citys).

that's sort of it.
since I support the basic idea of a state I guess I am not an anarchist and since I believe in private property I guess I am not a communist, so...
is there a name for that?

[ericksolvi]

If you lived in the US you would probably call yourself a libertarian. It's a mix between selfish capitalistic desire, and loathing for large government.
I would suggest you seriously ask yourself a few questions.
Is my belief in the state the result of social programming?
Would a property free system make me feel insecure, and if so is that a rational basis for my opinion?
Is my opposition to the current state model based upon the unjust nature of the state, or is it because I loath the idea of being forced into military service?

[Die Rote Fahne]

If you lived in the US you would probably call yourself a libertarian. It's a mix between selfish capitalistic desire, and loathing for large government.
I would suggest you seriously ask yourself a few questions.
Is my belief in the state the result of social programming?
Would a property free system make me feel insecure, and if so is that a rational basis for my opinion?
Is my opposition to the current state model based upon the unjust nature of the state, or is it because I loath the idea of being forced into military service?
I guess you missed his bullet about preferring a gift economy?

[Geiseric]

well private property is basically the defining charecteristic of capitalism... property and possetions are seperate things though.

[RedMarxist]

I believe in private property, but I think the atmosphere should be of mutual help.What kind of private property. small-scale housing? large corporate farms? please elaborate. If it is the latter, than that must be taken away from it's Capitalistic owners and put under democratic worker control.


I believe in the idea of a state, but not the way a state is today, direct democracy should replace prime ministers and/or presidents.Is this a 'spur of the moment' reaction. Did you see the Direct Democracy protests in Greece, and think that that is the way to go? Or did you make up your mind after much deliberation?

Ideally it would be the way to go, but as we've seen in Greece, there are many hurdles to jump through before it can function as an efficient system of government.

Right now I would still advocate a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, by that I mean a government in which the Bourgeoisie's grandest desires would be suppressed, but full democratic rights would be granted to the proletariat/everyone else in line with proletarian views.


Joining the military should be a choice a draft in necessary, to fight off reactionary forces from afar.


and the military should be only as self defense and the definition of self defense in that matter should be very specific Lest the revolution succumb to 'Socialism in One Country' policies and wither and eventually die on the vine, wasted of revolutionary potential.

No, the revolution would ideally have to be spread to neighboring nations that respectively were trying to throw of the yoke of reaction to ensure it[the revolution] would not be in vain.


I mean no offense, but it is obvious that you are an idealist. A far left Libertarian. I'm still young(I'm assuming you are young too), yet I have for a good long time carefully studied Marxist and Leninist thought and after much deliberation have realized who I really am: A Marxist-Leninist.

Thus far, Marxist-Leninism has been the main and only effective way to help cause and lead a revolution. Despite its flaws[and many failures] it should not be simply discounted as a 'dead ideology' as many idealistic fellow comrades on this forum have done since the fall of the USSR in 1991. I suggest you read up on the Nepali, Indian, and Filipino revolutions to get a better understanding of modern day struggles led by vanguard parties.

A good example of a vanguard party working alongside the Greek true democracy scene is the KOE(not the be confused with the reformist KKE parliamentary party). They have been working around the clock to influence the assemblies and try to revolutionize them, agitating with far left 'propaganda', and right now it is working fine. A good vanguard party should by all means agitate, agitate, (agitate!). But are they 'usurping' rule from the proletariat. No. That is my ideal vanguard party btw.

I suggest you read the The Life of Lenin, by Louis Fischer, to get a good understanding of the man behind the theory of Leninism. To get a good understanding of what went wrong with the Bolshevik party and why the gains of the revolution were let down, read The Bolsheviks in Power. I also suggest an eyewitness account of the Cultural Revolution period of the PRC, Born Red. It really examines went went wrong with the Chinese Communist Party policy wise from a personal, down to earth perspective.

Leninism is not dead. Far from dead actually.

[ericksolvi]

I guess you missed his bullet about preferring a gift economy?

I said he'd call himself a libertarian. Not that other libertarians would agree with him. As far as I'm concerned libertarian is just what people call themselves when their political beliefs are supported by practically no one, and yet they believe that those beliefs are valid and should be imposed on others.

[Obs]

I said he'd call himself a libertarian. Not that other libertarians would agree with him. As far as I'm concerned libertarian is just what people call themselves when their political beliefs are supported by practically no one, and yet they believe that those beliefs are valid and should be imposed on others.
You seem like a fucking idiot

[RedMarxist]

He's a Libertarian in the sense that he is idealistic and harbors impractical, unrealistic, naive viewpoints and doesn't even understand the core tenants of Marxist thought.

I used to be like him. When I first came onto this web site, I shunned "autocratic" Marxist-Leninism, went through a childish "Council Communist" stage, was a "Christian Communist", and thought that the only way for a future Socialist society to go was true democracy(as the only ideal government).

I changed thanks to independent reading and fellow comrades giving me a helping hand.

Now I am a Marxist-Leninist, have shunned council Communism, have began to see the impracticability of true democracy, am no longer a "Christian Communist."

To OP: Read as much Marx as possible. I suggest starting out with an anthology rather than the online full texts. I recommend The Portable Karl Marx. It has a good selection of letters, contains the entire Communist Manifesto and Critique of the Gotha Program, a good portion of full and edited works, and is around 500+ pages long with a bunch of explanations of Marxist theories right before the index. I still read it.

For a good book on Lenin's works, read The Lenin Anthology.

I also recommend, to get a good view of what went right and wrong with the 20th century Communist movement to read A Red Flag, A History of Communism.

I must note that the revolution won't happen tomorrow. Also, speculating about the ideal Socialist State is pointless because until it happens, we have no way to predict the course a post-revolutionary society will take in the 21st century.

Possible socialist states that may crop up in maybe a decade or so are India and the Philippines. Nepal may become revolutionary, if it can get rid of reformist elements within it's own Maoist Communist Party.

[Nox]

So, the thing is I don't know how to define my political views and I want to know where to look for other people with opinions like mine so I want you people to tell me what's the correct name of my views and beliefs.

So I guess i should try to describe it.
I believe in gift economy instead of money.
I believe in the idea of a state, but not the way a state is today, direct democracy should replace prime ministers and/or presidents.
I believe in private property, but I think the atmosphere should be of mutual help.
The law should be more of guidelines so people will feel the law trusts them instead of being against them, people know that actions have consequences, they are not stupid.
Joining the military should be a choice (it is mandate here for at least three years) and the military should be only as self defense and the definition of self defense in that matter should be very specific (only when your state is attacked and lethal or non lethal force should be used only on the people attacking and not on citizens/citys).

that's sort of it.
since I support the basic idea of a state I guess I am not an anarchist and since I believe in private property I guess I am not a communist, so...
is there a name for that?

You're a Libertarian, maybe not an extreme one, but you're in the Libertarian 'area' of the spectrum.

[DimSum]

a reply for all of you

well, in private property i didn't mean things like factorys or companies, they should belong to everyone
i meant things like your TV or your guitar or "small" things.
i'm sorry if i was misunderstood but my english is not that good.

the thing is, I don't know a lot about communism and marxism, but here (Israel, the not conquered from other people parts) we have those small towns and they are called Kibuts.
when i asked what communism is, i was told "it's like a kibuts" so i'm not that sure about it.
since in a kibuts you are not really allowed to have anything more "advanced" than anyone else and anything else kind of belongs to everyone.

the thing is, here at Israel, there is no way, really no chance of having a goverment that the people will like and todays goverment didn't get that many votes, they just got more than anyone else.
so leftists like me hate Bibi because he is a lier that watches only his own ass and Liberman because he is fucking racist.
rightists hate them because they give more rights to the hassidic religious people.

this can be solved if instead of representatives that people don't give a **** about, we will have the people voting for decisions and not for others to vote for decisions.

I hope that explains it a bit more.

[DimSum]

well, i read now a bit about libertarianism and i think the basic idea is great but i read many of them support free market, death sentences and that many of them treat animals as property and don't think they should be free like humans should be.
as a pacifist I believe death sentences are wrong, I believe in gift economy so i definitely don't support market and i definitely believe that animals should have more rights.

[NewLeft]

I think you might be a left-libertarian.. Though you might want to reconsider the military and your understanding of anarchism. If you are interested, read up on Georgism and mutualism.

[hatzel]

There are a few possibilities here. As NewLeft has suggested, some form of left-libertarianism is one of these options. I know it's kind of taboo around here to talk about other fora out there on teh interwebz, but the Alliance of the Libertarian Left has a website with lots of articles on it and links to various other sites and a forum. You could look there. Even if just to see the seemingly never-ending list of tendencies they mention. You could look them up on Wikipedia or something.

Alternatively you might just not know exactly what we mean when we talk about property...

[Dimmu]

You should read some more on the anarchism if you are interested in more radical leftist politics.

Start of with the Anarchist FAQ, its a great read.
http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

[ZeroNowhere]

Guys, perhaps it's worth considering that words like 'private property' and 'state' are used differently in public discourse than they are in the context of an in-depth analysis of them. In any case, the OP sound like a socialist, and in technical terms they would probably fall under the label of utopian socialist (using the term properly here, mind, rather than just as a way of saying that their socialism seem 'unrealistic' as compared to a more realistic socialist utopia).


You should read some more on the anarchism if you are interested in more radical leftist politics.The Anarchist FAQ is worth reading if you're interested in anarchism and anarchist history, but it's about the last thing that you should read if you're interested in finding out about radical leftist politics as a whole, or if you haven't yet been adequately introduced to the latter.

[RedMarxist]

Left Libertarianism is what most folks tend to become upon first reading Marx.

I used to be one(a Council, Christian Communist).

Obviously you just starting reading Marx, have no firm grasp on theory or history, and "became a Communist" for a specific, personal reason(like a lot of us here)

Read Lenin, Engels, and others. Talk to other people on this forum about their tendencies to see why they are what they are.

Read a few history books on the 20th century world Communist movement and esp. on the USSR and People's Republic of China.



the thing is, I don't know a lot about communism and marxismCommunism, is quite simply, a stateless, classless society coming directly after Socialism upon the state withering away.

It sounds like you are describing Socialism(non-reformist Socialism) in your post. Resources are held in common, people work for the common interests of their fellow man in order to benefit society etc. etc.

Right now I am critical of true democracy. It remains to be seen how the Greek people will run their nation through true democratic processes. But I could be wrong.

Being a Marxist-Leninist, I would advocate a Communist Party(revolutionary unlike the reformist Greek KKE) leading the class struggle. Where I live(the southern United States), people HATE Communism. Why? Because they have no idea what it is. Which is why the advanced class of Communists(the people who know what the hell they are talking about) must educate people about it as much as possible through the Communist Party.

TO THE OP: I suggest reading Lenin's 1901-02 book What is to be Done? to get a good understanding of Communist Party organization.

[Oswy]

well, i read now a bit about libertarianism and i think the basic idea is great but i read many of them support free market, death sentences and that many of them treat animals as property and don't think they should be free like humans should be.
as a pacifist I believe death sentences are wrong, I believe in gift economy so i definitely don't support market and i definitely believe that animals should have more rights.

You should maybe think a bit more about private-property. On the small-scale, indvidualised ownership of a modest home and garden seems innocuous enough, but the doctrine of ownership allows all of the earth and its resources to be monopolised by the few to the alienation or exploitation of the remainder. If you want to live in a society which allows everyone to gain equitable benefit from social arrangements then you have to abandon, or at least restrict, the private-property idea. Having a piece of paper that says you own 10,000 acres, and using guns, barbed-wire fences, or the force of the state to defend your monopolisation, is not a legitimate state of affairs.

[RedRose]

Brief Definitions:

Private Property: Means of production, eg. farms, factories. The core idea of capitalism is that these are private and owned legally by one individual or company. Legally also defined because they are immovable, and cannot be moved from place to place.

Personal Property: Houses, 'little things', cars, guitars, tables, chairs, clothes, doors, clocks, radios, CDs, your Xbox.

Socialism (and later communism) aims to abolish private property (eg. Place means of production back in democratic control by the workers), but keep personal property.

These definitions are probably wrong, but they give a good basic idea of what our goals are. Any other comrades feel free to have a go at me and correct them. Just after reading through the thread there were people talking about private property but I still don't think anyone has made it clear for DimSum what we're actually talking about :D

[Yazman]

You seem like a fucking idiot

Speak for yourself! It's against the rules to flame another user - especially in Learning. You'll be infracted if you do this anywhere on the forums again.

Consider yourself warned.

[ZeroNowhere]

So we can call people libertarians, but we can't call them idiots?

[DimSum]

Brief Definitions:

Private Property: Means of production, eg. farms, factories. The core idea of capitalism is that these are private and owned legally by one individual or company. Legally also defined because they are immovable, and cannot be moved from place to place.

Personal Property: Houses, 'little things', cars, guitars, tables, chairs, clothes, doors, clocks, radios, CDs, your Xbox.

Socialism (and later communism) aims to abolish private property (eg. Place means of production back in democratic control by the workers), but keep personal property.

These definitions are probably wrong, but they give a good basic idea of what our goals are. Any other comrades feel free to have a go at me and correct them. Just after reading through the thread there were people talking about private property but I still don't think anyone has made it clear for DimSum what we're actually talking about :D
oh!!! i'm sorry, when i said private property i meant personal property.
i tried to explain that when i wrote this a few replies earlier: "in private property i didn't mean things like factorys or companies, they should belong to everyone,
i meant things like your TV or your guitar or other "small" things."
no one really noticed i wrote that :lol:

does that explain what i meant?

[hatzel]

Yeah, you're correct. You used the example of the kibbutzim, which are very communal, as you know. The kibbutznikim would often live in shared accommodation, eat in the shared dining hall, and share all (or most) of their possessions. Perhaps this way of life is good (many good people have come from such communes all over the world, and you surely know the reputation of the kibbutznikim), but communism doesn't demand it. Perhaps you know the moshavim shitufiyim, where the industry and agriculture was managed and performed communally (like on a kibbutz),but people still have their own things, their own fridge with their own food. And stuff. Communism would be more like this, with production, and productive property, held and managed together, by the community, but one's own life would still be yours. But of course people could still live like on a kibbutz if they want!

[Obs]

So we can call people libertarians, but we can't call them idiots?
http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-iceburn.gif

fuck tha police

[NewLeft]

So we can call people libertarians, but we can't call them idiots?

Wow.. smug much?

[Agent Equality]

He's a Libertarian in the sense that he is idealistic and harbors impractical, unrealistic, naive viewpoints and doesn't even understand the core tenants of Marxist thought.

I used to be like him. When I first came onto this web site, I shunned "autocratic" Marxist-Leninism, went through a childish "Council Communist" stage, was a "Christian Communist", and thought that the only way for a future Socialist society to go was true democracy(as the only ideal government).

I changed thanks to independent reading and fellow comrades giving me a helping hand.

Now I am a Marxist-Leninist, have shunned council Communism, have began to see the impracticability of true democracy, am no longer a "Christian Communist."

To OP: Read as much Marx as possible. I suggest starting out with an anthology rather than the online full texts. I recommend The Portable Karl Marx. It has a good selection of letters, contains the entire Communist Manifesto and Critique of the Gotha Program, a good portion of full and edited works, and is around 500+ pages long with a bunch of explanations of Marxist theories right before the index. I still read it.

For a good book on Lenin's works, read The Lenin Anthology.

I also recommend, to get a good view of what went right and wrong with the 20th century Communist movement to read A Red Flag, A History of Communism.

I must note that the revolution won't happen tomorrow. Also, speculating about the ideal Socialist State is pointless because until it happens, we have no way to predict the course a post-revolutionary society will take in the 21st century.

Possible socialist states that may crop up in maybe a decade or so are India and the Philippines. Nepal may become revolutionary, if it can get rid of reformist elements within it's own Maoist Communist Party.

The only thing childish is this post.
MLism and the vanguard party will never bring universal emancipation of humanity from oppression and exploitation. It simply will not. Your indoctrinated fanaticism for these failed ideas will only serve to hinder the revolutionary cause of bringing about universal equality and fairness for all.

It is quite a childish view, almost an insane one in fact, to continue to try and press for MLism and the vanguard party, after it has had a whole century of failure.


Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
- Albert Einstein

[Thirsty Crow]

So I guess i should try to describe it.
I believe in gift economy instead of money.
I believe in the idea of a state, but not the way a state is today, direct democracy should replace prime ministers and/or presidents.
I believe in private property, but I think the atmosphere should be of mutual help.

In fact, I don't think there's a name for the political views you represent because they are extremely heterogenous.
For example, the political position of support for a gift economy and the support of private property is absolutely contradictory.

And if by any chance you meant personal possessions under "private property", then congrats, you are a communist.

[DimSum]

In fact, I don't think there's a name for the political views you represent because they are extremely heterogenous.
For example, the political position of support for a gift economy and the support of private property is absolutely contradictory.

And if by any chance you meant personal possessions under "private property", then congrats, you are a communist.
I indeed meant pesonal possessions, i just didn't knew the right name for it.

[RedMarxist]

The only thing childish is this post.
MLism and the vanguard party will never bring universal emancipation of humanity from oppression and exploitation. It simply will not. Your indoctrinated fanaticism for these failed ideas will only serve to hinder the revolutionary cause of bringing about universal equality and fairness for all.

It is quite a childish view, almost an insane one in fact, to continue to try and press for MLism and the vanguard party, after it has had a whole century of failure.

Indoctrinated? Tell me Agent Equality, how much do you know about Marxism-Leninism.

Here's a fact: Leninism as a set of theories has nothing to do with Stalin or seizing power away from the proletariat through force. Nothing.

It's simply a way to, in an organized fashion, to help lead a revolution.

[GatesofLenin]

Indoctrinated? Tell me Agent Equality, how much do you know about Marxism-Leninism.

Here's a fact: Leninism as a set of theories has nothing to do with Stalin or seizing power away from the proletariat through force. Nothing.

It's simply a way to, in an organized fashion, to help lead a revolution.

Love the answers we get for stating our ML ideas. "Your ideas led to failure, look at the USSR" at least our ideas were tried in a real country. Well said RedMarxist! :thumbup1:

[RedMarxist]

exactly. Anarchism, "Left" Communism, etc. have never been attempted(or at least succeeded) in a single country.

Until the day comes when Anarchism or possibly even Syndicalism for a change replaces Capitalism in a country, we will never know for sure whose theory of "proper Socialism" is correct.

You're indoctrinated. I don't know what tendency you possess, but you yourself are so absorbed in it, that you see Leninism or any other form of Socialism as a failure or otherwise not effective.

It's a well known fact, and I shall stress this again, that what Lenin did doesn't necessarily reflect the "early Lenin", you know the one that spoke of democracy, The Communist Party being used as an arm of the proletariat alongside, not above the proletariat themselves, etc.

Due to a varied set of reasons(and I'm not blind-I admit that Lenin staged an undemocratic coup to solidify his own supreme power over Russia), Lenin took power and only then did he justify the Communist Party being above proletarian society, basically flip flopping his earlier statements in the many articles he wrote years before the October Revolution.

What "failed" was the Communist Party taking power and forming a single-party state detrimental to the interest of the proletariat.

Because of Lenin's unjust actions, Just about every single Communist Party waging a revolution would use Lenin's excuses as their own, to justify forming single party states in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, etc.

I should know. My collection includes a ton of books on Bolshevism, the 20th century world Communist movement, Lenin's life and his works, etc.

What the Greek KOE is doing(not to be confused with the reformist KKE traitors!), working alongside, not above the Greek proletariat, is exactly what the early Lenin would have advocated. THAT is the epitome of a true Vanguard Communist Party.

The one, fundamental flaw of Left Communism, Anarchism, or any form of Socialist or Communist movement that promotes total decentralization, is that despite the good intentions to make sure that no one is in power officially, the movements end up having no unified goal, no plan. That is exactly what you see in the modern day world Anarchist movement. During the Greek general strike of October 19-20th, 4 teens, I believe all aged 14, were arrested for making Molotov Cocktails with the obvious aim at killing Cops(who by the way are human beings too!). Things like this happen all over the world. Young teens, influenced by the fantasy of the tough, authority hating anarchist, decide to use violence and terror against 'the man'. This is pretty much what you get from those movements. Idealism.

I used to be influenced by Left Council Communism. Then as I got deeper into Marxist thought, I changed. I realized that only through rigid organization can a revolution succeed. I may still be in high school, but I still not a ton more than you seem to know about Leninism and Marxism. A revolution cannot succeed at the hands of a bunch of kids lobbing flaming bottles of vodka at cops. It can't. A revolution needs a plan.

My two cents. :)

[thefinalmarch]

Indoctrinated? Tell me Agent Equality, how much do you know about Marxism-Leninism.
The ideological current known as "Marxism-Leninism" was largely just pulled right out of Stalin's arse. "Marxism-Leninism" -- originally termed simply "Leninism" by Stalin in The Foundations of Leninism (1924) -- didn't exist as a concrete ideology until the year of publication of that book in which Stalin's ideology was outlined. Over the years it was developed further and came to be known as "Marxism-Leninism", probably in order to give it some sort of legitimacy or historical precedent by claiming it to be the intellectual heir of true Marxism, or when it was claimed to be perfectly true to Lenin's own ideology (which is what was claimed by the communist party).


Here's a fact: Leninism as a set of theories has nothing to do with Stalin or seizing power away from the proletariat through force. Nothing.
The term "Marxism-Leninism" is not a synonym for Lenin's own ideology, which you subscribe to. The term "Marxism-Leninism" must be understood in its historical context (as described above) as a synonym for what came to be known by Trotskyists/"Bolshevik-Leninists", Left Communists, "Luxemburgists", and Anarchists as "Stalinism". Therefore calling yourself a "Marxist-Leninist" whilst also rejecting Stalin doesn't make any sense.

[GatesofLenin]

From what I've read, the October 1917 revolution went well but troubles started to appear early 1918 due to outside influences from France and Great Britain supporting the white Russians (monarchy supporters, rich landowners, etc...) We can state here and now that Lenin and the Bolshevik party were forced to go authoritarian to avoid a return to the old days. I know that the Romanovs continued to live in France after the Oct 1917 revolution and were a constant pain in the USSR backside.

[Agent Equality]

exactly. Anarchism, "Left" Communism, etc. have never been attempted(or at least succeeded) in a single country.

Until the day comes when Anarchism or possibly even Syndicalism for a change replaces Capitalism in a country, we will never know for sure whose theory of "proper Socialism" is correct.

You're indoctrinated. I don't know what tendency you possess, but you yourself are so absorbed in it, that you see Leninism or any other form of Socialism as a failure or otherwise not effective.

It's a well known fact, and I shall stress this again, that what Lenin did doesn't necessarily reflect the "early Lenin", you know the one that spoke of democracy, The Communist Party being used as an arm of the proletariat alongside, not above the proletariat themselves, etc.

Due to a varied set of reasons(and I'm not blind-I admit that Lenin staged an undemocratic coup to solidify his own supreme power over Russia), Lenin took power and only then did he justify the Communist Party being above proletarian society, basically flip flopping his earlier statements in the many articles he wrote years before the October Revolution.

What "failed" was the Communist Party taking power and forming a single-party state detrimental to the interest of the proletariat.

Because of Lenin's unjust actions, Just about every single Communist Party waging a revolution would use Lenin's excuses as their own, to justify forming single party states in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, etc.

I should know. My collection includes a ton of books on Bolshevism, the 20th century world Communist movement, Lenin's life and his works, etc.

What the Greek KOE is doing(not to be confused with the reformist KKE traitors!), working alongside, not above the Greek proletariat, is exactly what the early Lenin would have advocated. THAT is the epitome of a true Vanguard Communist Party.

The one, fundamental flaw of Left Communism, Anarchism, or any form of Socialist or Communist movement that promotes total decentralization, is that despite the good intentions to make sure that no one is in power officially, the movements end up having no unified goal, no plan. That is exactly what you see in the modern day world Anarchist movement. During the Greek general strike of October 19-20th, 4 teens, I believe all aged 14, were arrested for making Molotov Cocktails with the obvious aim at killing Cops(who by the way are human beings too!). Things like this happen all over the world. Young teens, influenced by the fantasy of the tough, authority hating anarchist, decide to use violence and terror against 'the man'. This is pretty much what you get from those movements. Idealism.

I used to be influenced by Left Council Communism. Then as I got deeper into Marxist thought, I changed. I realized that only through rigid organization can a revolution succeed. I may still be in high school, but I still not a ton more than you seem to know about Leninism and Marxism. A revolution cannot succeed at the hands of a bunch of kids lobbing flaming bottles of vodka at cops. It can't. A revolution needs a plan.

My two cents. :)

You're quite naiive you know that? I only see Leninism as not working nor its offspring because it HASNT worked in the past. Lenin may have been driven by noble ideals and socialist thought in the beginning but his form of implementing socialism was simply contradictory to socialism.

Your two cents aren't worth the metal they're made from. You mistake the need for organization with the need for a party of uber smart revolutionaries who know their shit who lead the people to victory!! Organization =/= the need for a vanguard party.

All I see when I read your posts is a very long, impassioned, not thought out rant of the greatness of Lenin and his ideas and the absolute rejection of anything other than leninism. In every, single, post. Lenin, Lenin, Lenin :hammersickle: :star2: :hammersickle: :star2: COMMUNISM USSR FANBOY READ MORE LENIN, etc. etc. You quite simply are indoctrinated. An indoctrination and obsession with one man and his ideas, a refusal to realize that anything other than him and his ideas are wrong, and a rejection of anything other than this one man's ideas.

[GatesofLenin]

You're quite naiive you know that? I only see Leninism as not working nor its offspring because it HASNT worked in the past. Lenin may have been driven by noble ideals and socialist thought in the beginning but his form of implementing socialism was simply contradictory to socialism.

Your two cents aren't worth the metal they're made from. You mistake the need for organization with the need for a party of uber smart revolutionaries who know their shit who lead the people to victory!! Organization =/= the need for a vanguard party.

All I see when I read your posts is a very long, impassioned, not thought out rant of the greatness of Lenin and his ideas and the absolute rejection of anything other than leninism. In every, single, post. Lenin, Lenin, Lenin :hammersickle: :star2: :hammersickle: :star2: COMMUNISM USSR FANBOY READ MORE LENIN, etc. etc. You quite simply are indoctrinated. An indoctrination and obsession with one man and his ideas, a refusal to realize that anything other than him and his ideas are wrong, and a rejection of anything other than this one man's ideas.

That's a mature response, NOT! You accuse others of being naive and yet post this dribble. Easy to laugh at others, harder to post intelligent replies.

[DarkPast]

You're quite naiive you know that? I only see Leninism as not working nor its offspring because it HASNT worked in the past.

Why do I keep seeing this argument used again and again? You do know that *none* of the attempts to implement communism ever worked, right? If anything, the non-leninist attempts were even less successful and never really got off the ground.

I'm not neccesarily saying I disagree with your views on vanguardism - I just wanted to point out something I consider to be a weak argument.

[Rooster]

Why do I keep seeing this argument used again and again? You do know that *none* of the attempts to implement communism ever worked, right? If anything, the non-leninist attempts were even less successful and never really got off the ground.

Ideologies don't make revolutions. Lenin created a capitalist state ran by a single party. That party mechanism removed all worker control and then MLism was used to justify it (vanguard). The reason why we are able to critique the whole vanguard concept and MLism is because it's been seen in action and we've seen how it degenerated, finally falling apart completely.

[Fawkes]

Love the answers we get for stating our ML ideas. "Your ideas led to failure, look at the USSR" at least our ideas were tried in a real country.

As opposed to a fake country....


(derp)

[RedMarxist]

Ideologies don't make revolutions. Lenin created a capitalist state ran by a single party. That party mechanism removed all worker control and then MLism was used to justify it (vanguard). The reason why we are able to critique the whole vanguard concept and MLism is because it's been seen in action and we've seen how it degenerated, finally falling apart completely.

How many times do I have to explain this? Let me break it down into laymen terms: a Vanguard party isn't authoritarian on it's own accord.

A vanguard party's role should be to educate people on revolution. It should work alongside the people in an non-controlling fashion. In no way does it have anything in common with what Lenin, its creator, would later cause it to become.

Again, Agent Equality, you are ignorant. agent equality, you outright insult me, calling me wrong, a "Soviet Union fanboy", etc. So much for equality, agent no equality.

I have as about as much love for the USSR as anybody. I don't respect Lenin's future choices. Etc.

I'm done discussing with you.

[Rooster]

How many times do I have to explain this? Let me break it down into laymen terms: a Vanguard party isn't authoritarian on it's own accord.

A vanguard party's role should be to educate people on revolution. It should work alongside the people in an non-controlling fashion. In no way does it have anything in common with what Lenin, its creator, would later cause it to become.

Did history pan out the way you worded it? The Bolsheviks agitated yeah, like every other political party, but the Bolsheviks tried their best to be firmly in control, and succeeded. Once the Bolsheviks got hold of the reigns of power they never let go. It's one thing to talk about the vanguard as being the educator of the proletariat (something which I think is a bourgeois kinda notion regarding the working class) and actually looking at the practice of it.

[RedMarxist]

so what kind of socialist ideology would you advocate rooster? Just curious. :)

[GatesofLenin]

As opposed to a fake country....

(derp)

More like the USSR existed unlike posters here who talk about an anarchy-utopia, which was never tried in real life. Understood?

[ZeroNowhere]

More like the USSR existed unlike posters here who talk about an anarchy-utopia, which was never tried in real life. Understood?


The entire movement of history, just as its [communism’s] actual act of genesis – the birth act of its empirical existence – is, therefore, for its thinking consciousness the comprehended and known process of its becoming. Whereas the still immature communism seeks an historical proof for itself – a proof in the realm of what already exists – among disconnected historical phenomena opposed to private property, tearing single phases from the historical process and focusing attention on them as proofs of its historical pedigree (a hobby-horse ridden hard especially by Cabet, Villegardelle, etc.). By so doing it simply makes clear that by far the greater part of this process contradicts its own claim, and that, if it has ever existed, precisely its being in the past refutes its pretension to reality.

It is easy to see that the entire revolutionary movement necessarily finds both its empirical and its theoretical basis in the movement of private property – more precisely, in that of the economy.
- 'Private Property and Communism'.

[Art Vandelay]

exactly. Anarchism, "Left" Communism, etc. have never been attempted(or at least succeeded) in a single country.


Umm anarchism and communism cannot succeed in a single country...


Until the day comes when Anarchism or possibly even Syndicalism for a change replaces Capitalism in a country, we will never know for sure whose theory of "proper Socialism" is correct.

Perhaps you should maybe read something other than Lenin, because anarchism has been implemented before, there was a little ole revolution in 1936 known as the Spanish Civil War in case you had never heard of it, but there are other examples as well.


You're indoctrinated. I don't know what tendency you possess, but you yourself are so absorbed in it, that you see Leninism or any other form of Socialism as a failure or otherwise not effective.

It has been a failure, as it lead to capitalist restoration. Now does that discredit the entire theory of Leninism? Of course not but it does mean that there are some serious flaws that need to be addressed and you and your Lenin parroting buddies do not seem to be able to do that.


It's a well known fact, and I shall stress this again, that what Lenin did doesn't necessarily reflect the "early Lenin", you know the one that spoke of democracy, The Communist Party being used as an arm of the proletariat alongside, not above the proletariat themselves, etc.

Due to a varied set of reasons(and I'm not blind-I admit that Lenin staged an undemocratic coup to solidify his own supreme power over Russia), Lenin took power and only then did he justify the Communist Party being above proletarian society, basically flip flopping his earlier statements in the many articles he wrote years before the October Revolution.

Yeah thanks for painting the picture of the man you seem to uphold so much as an opportunist, which he was, throwing out his beliefs as soon as he was able to grab power and cement his leadership.


What "failed" was the Communist Party taking power and forming a single-party state detrimental to the interest of the proletariat.

Indeed it did.


I should know. My collection includes a ton of books on Bolshevism, the 20th century world Communist movement, Lenin's life and his works, etc.


Sorry to say man but no one cares really, not sure why but you have the tendency to talk alot about yourself during your posts, stuff that most people would not even think to bring up. This is not the best example but I am starting to think of you as a narcissist.


The one, fundamental flaw of Left Communism, Anarchism, or any form of Socialist or Communist movement that promotes total decentralization, is that despite the good intentions to make sure that no one is in power officially, the movements end up having no unified goal, no plan. That is exactly what you see in the modern day world Anarchist movement. During the Greek general strike of October 19-20th, 4 teens, I believe all aged 14, were arrested for making Molotov Cocktails with the obvious aim at killing Cops(who by the way are human beings too!). Things like this happen all over the world. Young teens, influenced by the fantasy of the tough, authority hating anarchist, decide to use violence and terror against 'the man'. This is pretty much what you get from those movements. Idealism.

Thanks for painting an entire movement with one brush, based off of what 4 teens? :rolleyes: What a joke your arguments are and sorry but it is no wonder why most threads with you posting do not develop into intellectual discussion. I can barely bother to respond to this drivel but as for your anecdote: Good I hope they burnt a fucking pig.


I used to be influenced by Left Council Communism. Then as I got deeper into Marxist thought, I changed. I realized that only through rigid organization can a revolution succeed. I may still be in high school, but I still not a ton more than you seem to know about Leninism and Marxism. A revolution cannot succeed at the hands of a bunch of kids lobbing flaming bottles of vodka at cops. It can't. A revolution needs a plan.


You have done nothing but flip flop since you have been on this board it is not news to anyone, neither is it that you found a way to talk about yourself more in a single post. By the way you do not need to tell people that you are in high school, it shows.


My two cents. :)

Keep them next time or bring an actual argument because I am fully prepared to have an actual discussion with you. But if all you have is the same bullshit cookie cutter Lenin propaganda that you spew on every thread you see then we can end this now and I will go back to ignoring your posts like I have been for the longest time.