Am I a leftist?

[Tychus]

Greetings everyone, I have been lurking this site for a long long time, especially OI.

I am pleased that you guys actually allow people with different beliefs and ideologies to post here freely without the fear of being booted for content. Very few places dedicated to a specific group of people have so much tolerance for other viewpoints, and it tells a lot about their open-mindedness.

You guys do ban fascists but strangely enough I can't bring myself to care about them too much. ;)

Anyway, what I want to know is if I'm really a leftist and if not, where my position is. I'll give a summary of most of my motifs and beliefs and I'll be glad to answer any question to help clarify my position.

For a start, I DESPISE American republicans, democrats and any form of social or economic conservative. I think they are a disease that retards innovation and progression and wish they would fucking disappear. Religious dipshits too, and its almost 2012... pathetic.

If I had a God, it would be technology. I believe it to be the answer to every problem and that the proper development and utilization of technology can free us all and help us all be independent.

I'm a firm individualist and think everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, the only limit being that their freedom should not limit anybody elses freedom.

I'm a supporter of a free market but unlike conservative idiots I believe a free market has to be forced to be free by government otherwise it's an oxymoron, just like anarchy.

I do believe in personal responsibility and I'm very cynical around people who can't live up to my standard, but again unlike right-wingers I believe exploitation is a crime, and any signature on a legal document or any "voluntary" exchange/contract is not voluntary or legal without informed consent.

I think fiat money is imaginary and worthless because it represents scarcity instead of value not to mention that it is created out of thin air. The gold standard must be brought back.

I have a heavy resentment against people with an unwarranted self-importance and my vigorous stance on making morons EARN the respect they demand frequently gets me into conflicts and makes people think I'm an asshole, both on and offline. 9 out of 10 forums I visit I get banned from because I questioned a mod and refused to kiss his ass, or some other retard with a high post count that mods are sympathetic to.

Thus, for the same reason I believe the rich should be heavily taxed, because most of their wealth is made from manipulating the market and not contributing jack shit. To me, the rich are the most extreme form of toxic narcissists who I would love to personally "re-educate" some reality into.

I support free health care and think all essential services that are in the public interest should be nationalized, but I believe people should pay for college and university because most people who go do so under different pretenses and don't really know what they want, and I don't want my money paying for some privileged turd who can't take his education seriously enough. In most parts of Canada you have to complete an assessment to get funding for college or university which asks you to write a few paragraphs to convince them you are taking your course seriously enough, and I think this system is fine.

I think America's foreign policy is disgusting and outright fascism, and that it needs to stop trashing so much money into that god damn war.

Military action, in my opinion, should only be used in defense or against a country that blatantly violates the rights of its citizens, such as child labor, forced child marriage like many Islamic countries but for the most part I think minding your own business is the most rational stance.

And I can't think of anything else to add.

In short, I am a firm individualist who believes in liberty and pursuit of happiness with minimal interference from the government or any other powerful entity, but I never understood why we can't have equality at the same time.

We are all born equal and don't choose how we psychologically become, so despite my cynicism and general aggression towards society, I believe that if every child is nurtured in a caring environment, not made to feel guilty for natural inclinations (religion) and have their interests supported instead of slammed for going against the family tradition, then we shall have peace.

However, I can't say I support communism like many of you say you do. But your definitions confuse me. You say the USSR wasn't really communist, nor is Cuba or North Korea. What were/are they then?:confused:

Oh wow my post is getting too long. So where do I fit on the political spectrum?

[Broletariat]

I would say you fit in the part of very confused person who hears bits and snippets of nice catch-phrases and sort of mashes them all together without taking the time to really study any of them.

Might I recommend you read some Marx? Marx pretty clearly defines Capitalism as being generalised commodity production, and this definitions encompasses the USSR/Cuba/China/North Korea etc..

[Nuvem]

I would say you fit in the part of very confused person who hears bits and snippets of nice catch-phrases and sort of mashes them all together without taking the time to really study any of them.

Might I recommend you read some Marx? Marx pretty clearly defines Capitalism as being generalised commodity production, and this definitions encompasses the USSR/Cuba/China/North Korea etc..

I would say you fit in the part of the very confused person who doesn't realize that commodities cease to be commodities when there is no longer a commodity market. The DPRK for example does not have a commodity market proper, though the others above have/had one to a greater or lesser extent, though this does not qualify them as being capitalist in their mode of production. There's frankly a lot more to it than that.

But I agree, crack open some basic writings by Marx, Engels or Lenin. Skip Bakhunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, or any other anarchist "theorist". A little Rosa Luxemburg would be good following Lenin, but be sure to include her later writings when she ceases to be anti-Bolshevik. Other writers should be saved until a solid understanding of Marx and Lenin is achieved- that is, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, Enver Hoxha, Leon Trotsky, J. Stalin, Kwame Nkrumah, and others all build their writings off of the basic framework of Marxism-Leninism (though more than a few listed above significantly distort it). A little dipping into philosophy is never a bad idea- most people can't just delve into Immanuel Kant, but I strongly recommend all of his writings. Hegel builds off of Kant, so no matter how much you read about him from other writers (which, in Marx and Engels, will be a lot), don't try to read him without first reading Kant, or you end up like Rosa Liechtenstein. Don't bother with Nietzche, he's not worth the paper he's printed on. In general stay away from any "left" Communist writers until you've read a good deal of Marx.

It's important to remember that any ideologically functional Communist or Socialist theorist(as opposed to worthless, ideologically barren ones) of the modern era bases their theories on the foundation that Marx and Engels created, and the vast array of variations resulting from interpretation and misinterpretation create a great number of ideological pitfalls and traps for the un-studious mind, especially if Marx isn't understood.

As of right now, no, you're not a leftist of any stripe if you support a free market or a market of any kind. It sounds like you're politically interested but fairly theoretically barren at the moment, and don't worry- most of us started there. All I can say as an actual Communist on a forum mostly overrun with liberal-would-be-leftists, anarkids and grand misinterpretors is thus; be careful with your mind.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Other writers should be saved until a solid understanding of Marx and Lenin is achieved- that is, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, Enver Hoxha, Leon Trotsky, J. Stalin, Kwame Nkrumah

Reading those authors will result in a brain aneurysm to anyone with a solid understanding of Marx.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Oh wow my post is getting too long. So where do I fit on the political spectrum?

Were you previously a libertarian?

[Tychus]

Were you previously a libertarian?

You mean a right-libertarian? Yes, until I was about 17. How did you know? That's creepy. O.O

Thanks everyone else for your responses, I'll get back to them tomorrow when both my eyes are open.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You despise economic conservatives but support free markets? That's a contradiction. I agree with what others have written, you seem all over the place politically.

[Tychus]

You despise economic conservatives but support free markets? That's a contradiction. I agree with what others have written, you seem all over the place politically.

A completely unfettered free market with no regulation is not a free market at all. It's an oxymoron. Economic conservatives delusionally believe that there are no monopolies in an unregulated market, but then when's the last time any one of them truly believe in what they say? They use words like "freedom" and "free market" so loosely that it doesn't mean shit anymore.

To me, a true free market can only exist if government forces companies to be competitive. Does that make sense?

I don't believe I contradicted myself.

[#FF0000]

I get what you're saying -- it's the rationale behind anti-trust laws. Unfettered capitalism leads to trusts and cartels and monopolies, and thus the "free market" becomes very much the opposite.


I think fiat money is imaginary and worthless because it represents scarcity instead of value not to mention that it is created out of thin air. The gold standard must be brought back.

P. much everything you said is true but fiat money is way more stable. Back when the US had a gold standard, recessions were a lot more dramatic and hit people way harder, and not to mention, were way, way more common.

Honestly there isn't a single redeeming quality of the gold standard, now that I think of it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

To me, a true free market can only exist if government forces companies to be competitive. Does that make sense?
Thanks for the clarification. I understand what you mean now, government intervention for the good of the market.

[RGacky3]

A completely unfettered free market with no regulation is not a free market at all. It's an oxymoron. Economic conservatives delusionally believe that there are no monopolies in an unregulated market, but then when's the last time any one of them truly believe in what they say? They use words like "freedom" and "free market" so loosely that it doesn't mean shit anymore.

To me, a true free market can only exist if government forces companies to be competitive. Does that make sense?

I don't believe I contradicted myself.

It makes sense to me, but even in a fully competative market you'll have serious problems, look up the contradictions of capital accumulation that marx wrote about, ultimately imo, you need an economic democracy.

Ultimately Capitalism cannot function, as, due to various contradictions), it leads to the rich getting richer and richer while the rest have it harder and harder, it eventually leads to collapse.


Thus, for the same reason I believe the rich should be heavily taxed, because most of their wealth is made from manipulating the market and not contributing jack shit. To me, the rich are the most extreme form of toxic narcissists who I would love to personally "re-educate" some reality into.


Don't do that man, you have no idea how creppy that sounds.

[Apoi_Viitor]

You mean a right-libertarian? Yes, until I was about 17. How did you know? That's creepy.

Your support for the gold standard.

[RGacky3]

BTW commodity money, especially a fixed one like gold, is very problematic, it restricts growth (as a socialist I think continous growth no matter what, as capitalism works, is a seriously dangerous thing, but you still need the ability to grow), also keep in mind a major reason gold was taken off as the standard was due to the fact that the USSR and South Africa basically controlled the gold supply.

[Agent Equality]

Skip Bakhunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, or any other anarchist "theorist".


A little Rosa Luxemburg would be good following Lenin, but be sure to include her later writings when she ceases to be anti-Bolshevik. ....that is, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, Enver Hoxha, Leon Trotsky, J. Stalin, Kwame Nkrumah
Skip the ones who actually care about working class emancipation and democracy and only read those who's theories' validity have been disproven by a centuries worth of evidence, who want to enslave the working class and not free it.

Because this is such a good idea

[hatzel]

It seems you're exactly half way between early 19th century liberalism and a modernised version of the same. Or, half-modernised early 19th century liberalism. Ah...

[Apoi_Viitor]

Might I recommend you read some Marx? Marx pretty clearly defines Capitalism as being generalised commodity production, and this definitions encompasses the USSR/Cuba/China/North Korea etc..

1. Where does Marx say that?

2. How would a modern technological society exist without generalized commodity production?

[Azraella]

For a start, I DESPISE American republicans, democrats and any form of social or economic conservative. I think they are a disease that retards innovation and progression and wish they would fucking disappear. Religious dipshits too, and its almost 2012... pathetic.



Interesting. I'm neither a dipshit or a conservative but I am religious and a communist too. Do you just insult people's intelligence because you don't agree with their ideas or convictions?

As for your politics, you are probably in the midst of figuring it out. Nothing real solid, but you seem to like different aspects of different political philosophies

[Tifosi]

But I agree, crack open some basic writings by Marx, Engels or Lenin. Skip Bakhunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, or any other anarchist "theorist". A little Rosa Luxemburg would be good following Lenin, but be sure to include her later writings when she ceases to be anti-Bolshevik. Other writers should be saved until a solid understanding of Marx and Lenin is achieved- that is, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, Enver Hoxha, Leon Trotsky, J. Stalin, Kwame Nkrumah, and others all build their writings off of the basic framework of Marxism-Leninism (though more than a few listed above significantly distort it). A little dipping into philosophy is never a bad idea- most people can't just delve into Immanuel Kant, but I strongly recommend all of his writings. Hegel builds off of Kant, so no matter how much you read about him from other writers (which, in Marx and Engels, will be a lot), don't try to read him without first reading Kant, or you end up like Rosa Liechtenstein. Don't bother with Nietzche, he's not worth the paper he's printed on. In general stay away from any "left" Communist writers until you've read a good deal of Marx.

And, most importantly of all, do as the party tells you <3 ;)

If you want to read some Kropotkin go for it. If you want to read some Nietzche go for it. Don't just skip over old, dead despots from the last century, it's important to learn from their mistakes and not repeat them. Doesn't matter what tendancy you like, having a anarchist or left communist 'political condom' on, may not protect you from Stalinists.

[Judicator]

Supports the free market = reactionary.

[Azraella]

Supports the free market = reactionary.
Markets are evil, bro

[Zealot]

Sound like some sort of Ron Paulist Libertarian. It's nowhere near being leftist but I commend you for looking elsewhere than Republicanites and the Democratists and for coming to Revleft.

[Tychus]

I would say you fit in the part of very confused person who hears bits and snippets of nice catch-phrases and sort of mashes them all together without taking the time to really study any of them.

Ouch.


Might I recommend you read some Marx?

Okay, any e-book you recommend?


Marx pretty clearly defines Capitalism as being generalised commodity production, and this definitions encompasses the USSR/Cuba/China/North Korea etc..

But how do we have a working system without commodity production?


I would say you fit in the part of the very confused person who doesn't realize that commodities cease to be commodities when there is no longer a commodity market.

Wait a minute, you're saying true communism hates commodities? How will we live an innovative, high standard life without commodities?


As of right now, no, you're not a leftist of any stripe if you support a free market or a market of any kind.

I thought leftist economics was about workers owning the means of production? If I support companies being owned by the workers but the companies themselves competing against other companies, would this make me a centrist or still a leftist but not hardcore enough? :cool:


It sounds like you're politically interested but fairly theoretically barren at the moment, and don't worry- most of us started there. All I can say as an actual Communist on a forum mostly overrun with liberal-would-be-leftists, anarkids and grand misinterpretors is thus; be careful with your mind.

Advice well taken, sir. I have made that mistake a couple times already that I no longer associate myself with any group ideology anymore. It always turns out to be sugarcoated horseshit that operated on false pretenses. As much as the Zeitgeist movement intrigues me and enlightened me like nothing before, I refused to be a part of it for the reasons you outlined.


P. much everything you said is true but fiat money is way more stable. Back when the US had a gold standard, recessions were a lot more dramatic and hit people way harder, and not to mention, were way, way more common.

Honestly there isn't a single redeeming quality of the gold standard, now that I think of it.

Is it possible that the US had so many harder recessions in the past for other reasons?

Gold, unlike fiat money is scarce, and can't just be created out of thin air, so surely it better represents value than paper money that is abundant and just causes inflation?


It makes sense to me, but even in a fully competative market you'll have serious problems, look up the contradictions of capital accumulation that marx wrote about, ultimately imo, you need an economic democracy.

Hi Gacky, I recognize you and read many of your posts, may I ask why you're restricted? You're one of the most rational members I've seen on here. :confused:

Does it count as economic democracy if workers owned the companies but we still had competition? There is no alternative that ever worked before to the best of my knowledge. All attempts at communism eventually turned into authoritarian regimes. Cuba is probably the most functional communist state IMO considering the embargo and all the shit the USA put on them, and look what Castro does, jails people for a couple years for even telling their children anything that is contrary to Marxist philosophy.


Ultimately Capitalism cannot function, as, due to various contradictions), it leads to the rich getting richer and richer while the rest have it harder and harder, it eventually leads to collapse.

I would agree if you were talking about laisse fare (fuck spelling) capitalism.


Don't do that man, you have no idea how creppy that sounds.

Creppy? Did you mean creepy? Well golly gee Mr. Puritan, we're all sexual deviants. I just happen to love pounding that fine, fat whorediamond yuppie ass, got a problem? ;)


Interesting. I'm neither a dipshit or a conservative but I am religious and a communist too. Do you just insult people's intelligence because you don't agree with their ideas or convictions?

Well, let me rephrase. I have no problem with the casually or even devoutly religious that act like normal functional people and aren't hellbent on imposing their beliefs on everyone else through legislation and indoctrination.

But yes, I do insult people's intelligence if they believe in a deity concretely, because they are laughably idiotic.


Supports the free market = reactionary.

lol, hi Judicator Aldaris. Your conclave shall be defeated, you reactionary fuckpig! Phear the Dark Templar and our revolutionary leader Tassadar! You shall soon share our misery. :laugh:

[Judicator]

I smell a troll.

[Tychus]

I smell a troll.

Oh, lighten up, it's a Starcraft reference. Aldaris was ranked "Judicator" of a conservative and highly religious tribe that sought to suppress revolutionary change within its homeworld. Since your username was Judicator and you're considered a reactionary right-winger around here, I couldn't help myself but make it. :D

[Judicator]

Oh, lighten up, it's a Starcraft reference. Aldaris was ranked "Judicator" of a conservative and highly religious tribe that sought to suppress revolutionary change within its homeworld. Since your username was Judicator and you're considered a reactionary right-winger around here, I couldn't help myself but make it. :D

Oh no it's not about the references, just the dubiously low post count and your early posts being in OI.

[Tychus]

Oh no it's not about the references, just the dubiously low post count and your early posts being in OI.

Ah, no I can assure that this is my first time posting here after 4 years of lurking, a mod can do an IP check to verify.

I get accused of being a troll rather fast on most forums, and I've never created multiple accounts in my life. Weird people on da intrawebz I tell you. :lol:

[RGacky3]

Hi Gacky, I recognize you and read many of your posts, may I ask why you're restricted? You're one of the most rational members I've seen on here. :confused:


anti-abortion.


Does it count as economic democracy if workers owned the companies but we still had competition? There is no alternative that ever worked before to the best of my knowledge. All attempts at communism eventually turned into authoritarian regimes. Cuba is probably the most functional communist state IMO considering the embargo and all the shit the USA put on them, and look what Castro does, jails people for a couple years for even telling their children anything that is contrary to Marxist philosophy.


sure thats a form of workers democracy, i.e. democracy in the capital structure but a market in the commodity structure. I am personally on the fence when it comes to that, although its definately a form of socialism I'm not sold if that would work, but I'm open to it.

Be careful with your statement "all attempts at communism," so far your mentioning ONLY the marxist-leninist model, i.e. the lenin/stalin model. in the 20th century thats been the most popular model (although not hte only one), that model essencially did not attempt to create a workers democracy, they made a centrally planned economy, a state-capitalist economy, and the totalitarian nature came with the leninist political model.

If you take the rebellions against the USSR, such as in ukrane, hungary, even the prague spring, they were all workers rebellions, infact in all of those places they set up actual work place democracies, these were rebellions AGAINST the USSR FOR socialism.


I would agree if you were talking about laisse fare (fuck spelling) capitalism.


Not really, infact one argument that people have constantly made was that Marx was shown wrong because he did not invision the trade union movement or the welfare state or social democracy, (although if you read Marx you'll notice that he dealt with free market capitalism for a good reason.) When you regulate capitalism, or make welfare protections, you still ahve the internal contradictions, which will get bigger and bigger, even if it happens slower, ultimately any constraints on capital accumulation would be dismantled, this can be seen empirically as well, over time regulations get stripped as capitalist firms need to make more profit, and the welfare state gets stripped over time, or the contradictions lead to the state having to pump more and more into the economy to keep it going leading to a sovreign debt crisis.

Of the social democratic models the ONLY ones that are still going are the ones that took major institutions and made them not for profit and not market based and democratic, for example Norway nationalizations, or german co-determination.

Although I feel that even when you do that, as long as you have most of the economy being a capital accumulation economy, you'll inevitably lead to the same collapse.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hello and welcome.

If I had a God, it would be technology. I believe it to be the answer to every problem and that the proper development and utilization of technology can free us all and help us all be independent.Well you may be a leftist on some things, but not a radical leftist because your worldview doesn't seem to incorporate a sense of how society is organized and for whose interests: i.e. a class understanding of the world. The quote above is a good example because while I also think science and technology can really make life better for everyone, the way technology is developed and put to use is not separate from the class question. Feudal societies had slow technological development because those rulers didn't need labor-saving devices, they had slaves and serfs. Capitalism has had a lot of technological development because labor-saving devices can increase profit for a short time and help capitalists get an edge in competition by lowering wages and de-skilling more specialized (and higher-paid) work. But technology isn't developed in a bubble, so capitalism promotes development that helps them make profit or wage wars with their national competitors or maintain their rule, but it neglects the development of technologies that could help people or make our lives better if these technologies don't increase profit or actually hurt profits.

Think about digital technology and how capitalists have used laws to stop free information sharing while developing other technologies that will allow them to control the sharing of information in order to preserve their control of that property. Petrol is another really obvious example - it's not in their interest to use better energy sources when they can still make money quicker with oil. Medicine, agriculture, and everything down the line perverts technology so that it serves the masters of society, not society in general.

A society where working people run their own lives and run production cooperatively would mean that the incentive for new technologies is to make things easier, have more quality, be more abundant for producers and consumers, not for profit motives.


I'm a firm individualist and think everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, the only limit being that their freedom should not limit anybody elses freedom.Everyone should and this is one of the reasons I think we need to overthrow capitalism which dictates how we live and what we can do with our lives.


However, I can't say I support communism like many of you say you do. But your definitions confuse me. You say the USSR wasn't really communist, nor is Cuba or North Korea. What were/are they then?:confused:I believe that they were state-capitalist. Their models were to use the state as a stand-in for the role usually played by the bourgeois because these countries developed industry later than England or France and had weak capitalist classes that were either dependent on semi-feudal classes or capitalists from other developed capitalist nations and so they were unwilling or unable to develop capitalism internally in the way it developed in England. Japan and Germany and Arab Nationalist countries and many other countries that came to capitalism later also used some of these methods to develop industry quickly - the difference is that unlike the USSR or China they didn't used the language of worker's revolution to do this. But push aside the rhetoric and the so-called socialist countries really seem interested in the same things as other state-capitalist models: keeping off the influence of imperialism so that independent industry could develop rather than having industry that's dependant on big imperialist countries.

Communism in the traditional Marxist sense is merely a class-less stateless society. Marx believed only the working class fighting in their own class interests could achieve this kind of society because if workers ran production democratically, they would not need other classes to exploit in order for society to function.

[Manic Impressive]

Okay, any e-book you recommend?
http://www.marxists.org/

[Comrade Hill]

If you have to ask people if you are a leftist or not, you probably aren't a leftist.

Read Marx, Lenin, Kroptokin, DeLeon, etc. Look for YouTube videos on Marxism (tutorials) and make a decision for yourself.

Supporting government intervention in a market oriented economy? Sounds like a Keynesian to me.

Supporting the gold standard sounds like Austrian economics. How can you be both an Austrian and a Keynesian?

You do realize that with a gold standard, it makes it harder for the government to intervene? And there is nothing about fiat money that "creates scarcity." What creates scarcity is the complete disregard of use-values, and the incentive to accumulate money instead of produce commodities. Fiat money is a credit system that accelerates money ahead of its socially necessary labour time, and which money is expanded electronically on the balance sheets of banks. They charge you interest for the risk associated with defaulting. This credit system is managed and controlled by the Wall street banks and the Federal Reserve. Without this, it makes it harder to keep the currency stable.

Without a central bank maintaining interest rates, that means interest is controlled by the private sector. Money would instead be managed by local municipal banks and state banks, with one ounce of gold = $1. Since markets of exchange see value as subjective, the people who own this gold would create artificial scarcities to maximize their utility. This causes deflation and causes the value of debt to skyrocket, while pushing down prices, thus creating a depression. In the 1800s, the United States spent 45% of the time in depression.

Your ideas contradict each other.

[RGacky3]

Supporting the gold standard sounds like Austrian economics. How can you be both an Austrian and a Keynesian?


picking one aspect of different economic theories does'nt make you THAT, you can support a gold standard (a totally irresonsible possition) and not be an austrian, you can support government intervention and not be a keynsian.

[Revolutionair]

picking one aspect of different economic theories does'nt make you THAT, you can support a gold standard (a totally irresonsible possition) and not be an austrian, you can support government intervention and not be a keynsian.

Now that we have economic crisis, make cuts, do it fast!
Okay guys, don't ask me how, but the recession is over. Now stimulate, stimulate, stimulate! :laugh:


On topic.
You can access most of the important leftist books (there are also some non-leftist books (just saying so you don't think that Mussolini is a leftist)) here:
www.marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org)

edit:
The Principles of Communism is a good book to start out with. After that you could try the Communist Manifesto.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
/edit

If you are feeling lazy, you can check out this playlist. It's a stepping stone to understand Marxian economics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGT-hygPqUM&feature=BFa&list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7&lf=results_video

[RGacky3]

Now that we have economic crisis, make cuts, do it fast!
Okay guys, don't ask me how, but the recession is over. Now stimulate, stimulate, stimulate! http://www.revleft.com/vb/am-leftisti-t164884/revleft/smilies2/lol.gif


I don't get what that has to do with my post AT ALL.

[Revolutionair]

I don't get what that has to do with my post AT ALL.


you can support government intervention and not be a keynsian

I was impersonating someone who supports government intervention in the opposite way of a Keynesian.

[RGacky3]

I personally think that Richard Wolffs introduction to Marxian economics is a good place to start, http://www.rdwolff.com/content/marxian-economics-intensive-introduction, he goes over the basics in a pretty basic and easy way.

[Comrade Hill]

picking one aspect of different economic theories does'nt make you THAT, you can support a gold standard (a totally irresonsible possition) and not be an austrian, you can support government intervention and not be a keynsian.

How can someone support a gold standard and not be an Austrian?

You cannot support a gold standard AND support government intervention.

Or perhaps the government can create gold out of thin air? Can a central bank electronically create GOLD? Under a fixed gold exchange rate, who controls the interest rates? NOT THE GOVERNMENT. What purpose could government intervention possibly serve, if they can't even alter the money supply, set interest rates, or create reserve requirements?

And since the government cannot create debt under a good standard, that means investors would have little access to safe deposits. There is currently $9 trillion of public debt. If you loan out $90 to the banks, they lend out the money it becomes $900. That means, if $9 trillion of debt is gone, that is a $90 trillion contraction in the global economy. So we go to gold, the whole system collapses, what kind of "government Intervention" could somebody propose?

What would the government do under a gold standard, besides sit back and observe the misery? Under gold, interest rates get pushed UP if you borrow money. So perhaps the government can borrow money to stimulate the economy, but wait no they can't do that because under fixed exchange rate regimes, you get PUNISHED for borrowing.

[RGacky3]

How can someone support a gold standard and not be an Austrian?

You cannot support a gold standard AND support government intervention.


Easy, you just don't follow the rest of the Austrian economic methodology, theire are neoclassicals that support the gold standard, there are even Marxians that support it.

You can aboslutely support the gold standard and government intervention, why not? there was plenty of government intervention during the gold standard years.


Or perhaps the government can create gold out of thin air? Can a central bank electronically create GOLD? Under a fixed gold exchange rate, who controls the interest rates? NOT THE GOVERNMENT. What purpose could government intervention possibly serve, if they can't even alter the money supply, set interest rates, or create reserve requirements?


Right now a private insituttion controls the interest rates, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, infact most central banks purposely take the central bank out of the democratic process.

You could aboslutely have a gold standard with a central bank, as was the case from the feds creation to the 60s, and there was plenty of government intervention, I don't know where your comming from with this.


What would the government do under a gold standard, besides sit back and observe the misery?

Regulate commerce, make labor laws, levi taxes, control reserves, print money (which happened under the gold standard too, there is nothing intrinsicly value holding in gold, and you can create inflation simply by printing more money and devaluing it relative to the gold supply).

Its easy really, there is a shit load more to austrian economics than the gold standard.

[m1omfg]

Communism is against commodities in the definition of commodity = something that is sold for profit. Ellitimating commodities just means making stuff more accessible, not elliminating stuff and forcing everybody into some ascetic hellhole.

[Comrade Hill]

Easy, you just don't follow the rest of the Austrian economic methodology, theire are neoclassicals that support the gold standard, there are even Marxians that support it.


Gold standards worsen inequalities and it makes it harder for poor people to gain access to capital....i don't wanna know what kind of Marxists you have been talking to.



You can aboslutely support the gold standard and government intervention, why not? there was plenty of government intervention during the gold standard years.


Not enough to stop the SLAVE TRADE and th awful depressions that went on.



Right now a private insituttion controls the interest rates, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, infact most central banks purposely take the central bank out of the democratic process.


A private institution with members of the Open Market Committee chosen by the President and confirmed by congress, NON FOR PROFIT?

I believe you have your definitions confused.



You could aboslutely have a gold standard with a central bank, as was the case from the feds creation to the 60s, and there was plenty of government intervention, I don't know where your comming from with this.


A central bank alongside a gold standard? Are you kidding me? What kind of "government intervention" went on? What could a central bank have possibly done?



Regulate commerce, make labor laws, levi taxes, control reserves, print money (which happened under the gold standard too, there is nothing intrinsicly value holding in gold, and you can create inflation simply by printing more money and devaluing it relative to the gold supply).


Control reserves? What in the....?

THERE WAS NO RESERVE SYSTEM. There is nothing about "levying taxes" that qualifies it as government intervention.

If they printed money and devalued it relative to gold then it wasn't be a gold standard. A gold standard maintained that you HAD to have the money supply attached to gold asssets. If that doesnt happen, that is called a NON-gold standard, or a de facto gold standard, so please tell me, how can you have a good standard with government intervention?



Its easy really, there is a shit load more to austrian economics than the gold standard.

Yeah like subjective value theory, marginal utility theory, and a bunch of other BS filled with contradictions. I don't see why we as Marxists are sitting here arguing about Austrian economics. This is beyond ridiculous. I am done with this. Moving on...

[RGacky3]

Gold standards worsen inequalities and it makes it harder for poor people to gain access to capital....i don't wanna know what kind of Marxists you have been talking to.


Gold standard would worsen inequalities and so on now under capialism sure, the marxists that argue for it do so presupposing a socialist system.


Not enough to stop the SLAVE TRADE and th awful depressions that went on.


Ok ....

I'm not defending the gold standard, I'm saying just because you support a gold standard it does not mean you are necessarily an austrian.


A private institution with members of the Open Market Committee chosen by the President and confirmed by congress, NON FOR PROFIT?

I believe you have your definitions confused.


in practice the congress and president have almost no oversight of the Fed, infact they could'nt even audit the fed, they needed legislation to even do that.


A central bank alongside a gold standard? Are you kidding me? What kind of "government intervention" went on? What could a central bank have possibly done?


Read the the history, they did a lot.


Control reserves? What in the....?

THERE WAS NO RESERVE SYSTEM. There is nothing about "levying taxes" that qualifies it as government intervention.


yes there was, there was a FEDERAL RESERVE DURING THE GOLD STANDARD, this is historical fact.


If they printed money and devalued it relative to gold then it wasn't be a gold standard. A gold standard maintained that you HAD to have the money supply attached to gold asssets. If that doesnt happen, that is called a NON-gold standard, or a de facto gold standard, so please tell me, how can you have a good standard with government intervention?


yes it would be, $1 = 1 ounce of gold, and $2 = 1 ounce of gold is still a gold standard.

You don't need to ask me theoretically, from 1913 to 1971, the US had a gold standard and a Federal Reserve ....

its not that difficult.


Yeah like subjective value theory, marginal utility theory, and a bunch of other BS filled with contradictions. I don't see why we as Marxists are sitting here arguing about Austrian economics. This is beyond ridiculous. I am done with this. Moving on...

first of all, none of those theories are unique to Austrian economics, second of all, if your gonna make a stupid statement like if you support a gold standard you MUST be an austrian economist or if you support government intervention you MUST be a keynsian, you sure as hell need to back it up.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Supports the free market = reactionary.
Stop throwing around the word reactionary so freely.
Reactionary: of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reaction), especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/politics); opposing political or social change.

One can believe in the free market and be a leftist.

[Smyg]

One can believe in the free market and be a leftist.


"Leftist".

Anyway, this thread is hilarious, both in the ineptitude of the sectarians and the amusingness of the OP's ideas.

[Thirsty Crow]

To me, a true free market can only exist if government forces companies to be competitive. Does that make sense?

Of course it makes sense: the history of turn-of-the-century capitalism and its anti-trust legislation verifies that, although one should not assume that the tendency towards monopolies is universal irrespective of the actual stage of the accumulation process and economic sectors.

It seems that you are very much pro-capitalist. Though, that doesn't meant that you should automatically consider yourself as not being a leftist since the term has taken on all sorts of connotation. But what is evident is that you are not a revolutionary socialist. Revolutionary socialism advocates the abolition of capital as a social relation - and with it, the world market and market relations in general, in favour of production for use (whereas capitalism appears as production for sale) with corresponding forms of direct political rule of the working class prior to global socialism, and public administration, on behalf of the entire population.

[Azraella]

"Leftist".

Anyway, this thread is hilarious, both in the ineptitude of the sectarians and the amusingness of the OP's ideas.


We're only human. :)

[Smyg]

Rest assured, it wasn't you I was refering to, heh. :rolleyes:

[hatzel]

We're only human. :)

I resent this remark! We are considerably more than that...

[Comrade Hill]

Gold standard would worsen inequalities and so on now under capialism sure, the marxists that argue for it do so presupposing a socialist system.


I am beginning to get sick of you. You are blowing things WAY out of proportion, and looking too deeply into the context of what I'm saying, and trying to pick out flaws.

Supporting a gold standard, in a "free market capitalist system" and supporting government intervention, makes absolutely no sense, the two do not go together at all. You have yet to prove me wrong on this. I have countlessly stated that it is practically impossible for the government to effectively intervene in a money system attached to gold, because the government, nor can a central bank under a gold standard, control the fluctuations. If the government prints money while ignoring the relation that money has to gold, it is NOT A GOLD STANDARD. It is a de facto gold standard. Do you know what the word de facto means?


Ok ....



I'm not defending the gold standard, I'm saying just because you support a gold standard it does not mean you are necessarily an austrian.


It does if you support capitalism.



in practice the congress and president have almost no oversight of the Fed, infact they could'nt even audit the fed, they needed legislation to even do that.


Legislation is required to audit anything in the U.S. government. How does needing legislation to audit something make an institution private? It's a quasi-public institution, separate from the private sector and separate from congress.



Read the the history, they did a lot.


I'll be sure to look.



yes there was, there was a FEDERAL RESERVE DURING THE GOLD STANDARD, this is historical fact.


There was a 2nd national bank of the United States, but no Federal Reserve....



yes it would be, $1 = 1 ounce of gold, and $2 = 1 ounce of gold is still a gold standard.

You don't need to ask me theoretically, from 1913 to 1971, the US had a gold standard and a Federal Reserve ....

its not that difficult.


Most people don't really call that the "gold standard," they call it the Bretton Woods System.

Do you remember why the Great Depression lasted so long? Tell me why the Fed couldn't increase the money supply. Was it because they were just so overwhelmed by the many options of "government intervention" that they had on the table? :rolleyes:



first of all, none of those theories are unique to Austrian economics, second of all, if your gonna make a stupid statement like if you support a gold standard you MUST be an austrian economist or if you support government intervention you MUST be a keynsian, you sure as hell need to back it up.

That is NOT what I said. I said supporting an idea of austrian economics, and supporting an idea of keynesian economics is a contradiction.

Quit arguing for the sake of arguing. Seriously. Arguing for the sake of arguing does not make you smart.

I have had enough. No more replies to this.

[Broletariat]

I would say you fit in the part of the very confused person who doesn't realize that commodities cease to be commodities when there is no longer a commodity market. The DPRK for example does not have a commodity market proper, though the others above have/had one to a greater or lesser extent, though this does not qualify them as being capitalist in their mode of production. There's frankly a lot more to it than that.

Marx defined Capitalism as generalised commodity production, which implies value relationships, which the DPRK for example, does have.

So to paraphrase Marx, "no u."

[Durutii Column]

I'm a supporter of a free market but unlike conservative idiots I believe a free market has to be forced to be free by government otherwise it's an oxymoron, just like anarchy.
So you want free markets with centralized planning.:confused: And I do not even know where Rousseau fits into this. And how is anarchy an oxymoron.

[Tychus]

anti-abortion.<br />

Interesting. I haven't seen a pro-life leftists before. Can you give me a summary why you are pro-life and a brief elaboration about your exact position? Should minors be allowed abortions, what about raped women, etc?


sure thats a form of workers democracy, i.e. democracy in the capital structure but a market in the commodity structure. I am personally on the fence when it comes to that, although its definately a form of socialism I'm not sold if that would work, but I'm open to it.

I think Japan and other social democratic countries have this system, but I could be wrong. Nonetheless, I think this would be the best compromise between the failed capitalism we have now and the other extreme.


Be careful with your statement &quot;all attempts at communism,&quot; so far your mentioning ONLY the marxist-leninist model, i.e. the lenin/stalin model. in the 20th century thats been the most popular model (although not hte only one), that model essencially did not attempt to create a workers democracy, they made a centrally planned economy, a state-capitalist economy, and the totalitarian nature came with the leninist political model.

I see, but why did they call themselves communists then? Is there any country that succeeded with true communism?


If you take the rebellions against the USSR, such as in ukrane, hungary, even the prague spring, they were all workers rebellions, infact in all of those places they set up actual work place democracies, these were rebellions AGAINST the USSR FOR socialism.

Interesting.


Not really, infact one argument that people have constantly made was that Marx was shown wrong because he did not invision the trade union movement or the welfare state or social democracy, (although if you read Marx you'll notice that he dealt with free market capitalism for a good reason.) When you regulate capitalism, or make welfare protections, you still ahve the internal contradictions, which will get bigger and bigger, even if it happens slower, ultimately any constraints on capital accumulation would be dismantled, this can be seen empirically as well, over time regulations get stripped as capitalist firms need to make more profit, and the welfare state gets stripped over time, or the contradictions lead to the state having to pump more and more into the economy to keep it going leading to a sovreign debt crisis.

But wouldnt this happen anyway in a communist state? I'm not saying its human nature, but lots of people are lazy, selfish and greedy but ambitious and will find a way to grab power and get something for nothing, just like Stalin did.


Of the social democratic models the ONLY ones that are still going are the ones that took major institutions and made them not for profit and not market based and democratic, for example Norway nationalizations, or german co-determination.

But these countries are social-democracies with capitalist production systems, not revolutionary left economics.


Although I feel that even when you do that, as long as you have most of the economy being a capital accumulation economy, you'll inevitably lead to the same collapse.

I don't see a solution, though, do you?


Hello and welcome.<br />
Well you may be a leftist on some things, but not a radical leftist because your worldview doesn't seem to incorporate a sense of how society is organized and for whose interests: i.e. a class understanding of the world. The quote above is a good example because while I also think science and technology can really make life better for everyone, the way technology is developed and put to use is not separate from the class question. Feudal societies had slow technological development because those rulers didn't need labor-saving devices, they had slaves and serfs. Capitalism has had a lot of technological development because labor-saving devices can increase profit for a short time and help capitalists get an edge in competition by lowering wages and de-skilling more specialized (and higher-paid) work. But technology isn't developed in a bubble, so capitalism promotes development that helps them make profit or wage wars with their national competitors or maintain their rule, but it neglects the development of technologies that could help people or make our lives better if these technologies don't increase profit or actually hurt profits.

I totally agree. I guess I should've elaborated with what I meant with my vague declaritive opinion there.

I believe that if everyone got solar panels, used greener light bulbs and equipment and grew their own food in their own garden that they could live a much more free life and wouldnt have to depend on corporations to provide them these basic needs. And with 3D printers they could build their own tools (fuck the hardware store.)

That is what I meant by technology freeing us.


A society where working people run their own lives and run production cooperatively would mean that the incentive for new technologies is to make things easier, have more quality, be more abundant for producers and consumers, not for profit motives.

I'm all for that.


Everyone should and this is one of the reasons I think we need to overthrow capitalism which dictates how we live and what we can do with our lives.

As long as it's not done at the expense of individualism, I'm for it.


Communism in the traditional Marxist sense is merely a class-less stateless society. Marx believed only the working class fighting in their own class interests could achieve this kind of society because if workers ran production democratically, they would not need other classes to exploit in order for society to function.

We can't be realistically classless. Simply put, there are people like doctors or scientists whose roles are much more important than other regular people.


If you have to ask people if you are a leftist or not, you probably aren't a leftist.

That is simply not true, comrade. I get called a socialist pig frequently for supporting leftist causes and things like free healthcare. Sometimes, people need to hear it from hardcore leftists like on this site to help them get in touch with themselves. I have never hung out with a bunch of commies before, on or offline, and politics/economics aren't my thing, so how can I know?


Read Marx, Lenin, Kroptokin, DeLeon, etc. Look for YouTube videos on Marxism (tutorials) and make a decision for yourself.


Supporting government intervention in a market oriented economy? Sounds like a Keynesian to me.

Is that another word for liberal?


You do realize that with a gold standard, it makes it harder for the government to intervene? And there is nothing about fiat money that &quot;creates scarcity.&quot; What creates scarcity is the complete disregard of use-values, and the incentive to accumulate money instead of produce commodities.

Exactly, which is why a non-abundant and scarce form of currency like gold is more useful, because it has value. Fiat money just creates inflation.


Without a central bank maintaining interest rates, that means interest is controlled by the private sector. Money would instead be managed by local municipal banks and state banks, with one ounce of gold = $1. Since markets of exchange see value as subjective, the people who own this gold would create artificial scarcities to maximize their utility. This causes deflation and causes the value of debt to skyrocket, while pushing down prices, thus creating a depression. In the 1800s, the United States spent 45% of the time in depression.

I see what you're saying, but I'm also aware the central banking system, established in 1913 played a major role in the capitalist oppression you all talk about today. We can't let them create a monopolized worthless fiat currency. It's not the answer.

We were in a depression in the 1800s because we weren't producing shit. We were mainly a cotton industry, all done by slaves and we lived an unproductive, hedonistic feudal lifestyle at the expense of the brown ones.


Your ideas contradict each other.

I have been told equality and freedom don't go together. I happen to be a proud hypocrite. ;)


Of course it makes sense: the history of turn-of-the-century capitalism and its anti-trust legislation verifies that, although one should not assume that the tendency towards monopolies is universal irrespective of the actual stage of the accumulation process and economic sectors.

It seems that you are very much pro-capitalist. Though, that doesn't meant that you should automatically consider yourself as not being a leftist since the term has taken on all sorts of connotation. But what is evident is that you are not a revolutionary socialist. Revolutionary socialism advocates the abolition of capital as a social relation - and with it, the world market and market relations in general, in favour of production for use (whereas capitalism appears as production for sale) with corresponding forms of direct political rule of the working class prior to global socialism, and public administration, on behalf of the entire population.

Thanks for your answer. But know that I am always open to new ideas and that I might even become a revolutionary socialist if I'm convinced it is the best way to go.

Right now, the main reason I'm not is because Marxism to me reeks of dictatorship by the majority. Being a deviant with above-average intelligence, nothing pisses me off more than horrendously moronic masses that just take up space and have no respect for the very few ostracized revolutionaries that made their existence possible, like Tesla, who should have never given away his inventions for free or even pursued them at all for all the ungrateful disrespect and shit he had to deal with from narcissistic, commoner douchebags that have no ability beyond fucking, eating shitting and sleeping. And most people today don't even know his name. That's what he gets for bettering everyone's lives.

They don't fucking DESERVE justice or a comfortable life.

Sometimes, I feel only sorry that the US population isn't being oppressed more.

But yeah, that's what repels me from having the masses dictate the necessities of life. *shudders*


So you want free markets with centralized planning.:confused:

Not centralized planning, but strict regulation to ensure corporations do no harm.


And I do not even know where Rousseau fits into this. And how is anarchy an oxymoron.

Because its supposedly anti-authoritarian and an epitome of complete freedom, which it isn't since there will be no one to protect your liberties from some asshole bigger than you if he decides to kill you and steal all your stuff. No government = dictatorship by the individual. As much as I hate Reagan, that is one quote where he says something right.

[Yuppie Grinder]

OP seems like a genuinely curious person who should read a variety of political theory before subscribing to any philosophy.

[#FF0000]

Because its supposedly anti-authoritarian and an epitome of complete freedom, which it isn't since there will be no one to protect your liberties from some asshole bigger than you if he decides to kill you and steal all your stuff. No government = dictatorship by the individual. As much as I hate Reagan, that is one quote where he says something right.

That's assuming anarchism advocates for complete lack of any sort of order and aims to plunge the world into some Mad Max/Fist Of the North Star post-apocalyptic wasteland.

It does not.

It seeks to organize society differently -- under non-hierarchical, horizontal methods of organization -- and destroying all systems of class.

It's a really easy mistake to make, though. I mean it's not like they talk about radical ideologies on TV or in school or anything.



They don't fucking DESERVE justice or a comfortable life.

Sometimes, I feel only sorry that the US population isn't being oppressed more.

But yeah, that's what repels me from having the masses dictate the necessities of life. *shudders*Dawg lemme tell you, being a self-righteous misanthrope ain't a good look.

We're not so different, you and I

and so take it from me

understand and come to terms with the fact that you are a stupid, cowardly animal like every other human being on this planet.

it really helps put a lot of things into perspective


We can't be realistically classless. Simply put, there are people like doctors or scientists whose roles are much more important than other regular people.Being a doctor or a scientist generally doesn't give you some sort of political power over people, though. They might make more money, but a doctor or a scientist doesn't have near the amount of power a CEO does.


Right now, the main reason I'm not is because Marxism to me reeks of dictatorship by the majority. Just wanted to come back to this.

Get rid of preconceived notions and read things yourself, silly.

u no dis

[Thirsty Crow]

Thanks for your answer. But know that I am always open to new ideas and that I might even become a revolutionary socialist if I'm convinced it is the best way to go.No problem. You might encounter some wishy-washy hand waving here since we're constantly arguing with political opponents and very few new arguments are brought up against our position, but don't let that discourage you. Incidentally, I also find it useful to debate with honest and open political opponents.

It's good to be open to new ideas. Though, what is also at stake here is living experience - ideas do not float around in a vaccum, and people do not take up certain position as abstract rational choice makers, but rather according to something which we might calltheir "material life process", and generally revoluonary socialists - Marxists and anarchists - argue that it is their class relation, people's position within the dominant relations of production (workers on one side, capitalists and bosses on the other) that very much influences their mental processes (understanding of the world and their place in it, as well as other's), though not of course in such a manner that we could conclude that there is a sort of a predestionation or a rigid determinism.
The reason I am bringing this issue up is that you are, it seems to me, somewhat "stuck" in a way of thinking that ignores this impact, resulting in what appears as rigid elitism:



Right now, the main reason I'm not is because Marxism to me reeks of dictatorship by the majority.On a superficial level, you could as well not be a supporter of parliamentary democracy (which begs the question of what form of political rule would you support) since at some level it functions as a "dictatorship by the majority".

Marxism does in fact represent a theory of the effective "dictatorship of the majority" - precisely because we're living in a society under the dictatorship of a minority, and not only that (there's no reason to go into other reasons right here). But the impotant part is to understand that the term "dictatorship" must be taken not as synonymous with autocratic rule, or even single party rule, but more broadly, as one broad class based political rule, whereas workers attain the position of the ruling class, which enables us to abolish the conditions of our own exploitation and oppression.


Being a deviant with above-average intelligence, nothing pisses me off more than horrendously moronic masses that just take up space and have no respect for the very few ostracized revolutionaries that made their existence possible, like Tesla, who should have never given away his inventions for free or even pursued them at all for all the ungrateful disrespect and shit he had to deal with from narcissistic, commoner douchebags that have no ability beyond fucking, eating shitting and sleeping. And most people today don't even know his name. That's what he gets for bettering everyone's lives.And here's where the elitism shines through.

First of all, it is entirely erroneous to posit the problem in such a manner as to implicitly assume that an natural occurence in human societies is its division into the blind and stupid masses, on one hand, and the elightened cabal of "revolutionaries" on the other. There are very concrete social processes and mechanisms that determine (not as sole factors of determination, of course) the intelllectual development of broad layers of people. You are ingoring the simple fact that without the commoner douchebags - drained and destroyed by the very fact that they had to labour in a specific way for their livelihood - all of the inventions which better our lives simply could not have been practically created and employed. Thus, what appears is the other side of the picture - in order that material life might be produced at enhanced levels, we simply must have a class of men and women who are sucked in into the vortex of mind numbing labour. Without them, we've got nothing.


They don't fucking DESERVE justice or a comfortable life.My position is that "commoners", the global working class, deserves nothing except for what they themselves have fought over and gained in their struggle. We don't "deserve" anything, and we will gain nothing if we don't fight for it, and my goal is that the working class doesn't fight only for limited and temporary measures of somewhat increased prosperity and living standrd, but also for the whole world to reshape it according to our needs, and not that of the capitalist class.


Sometimes, I feel only sorry that the US population isn't being oppressed more.I do not, although sometimes it's hard for me not to fall for the trap of "if things were wayy worse, then surely a revolutionary wave would rip through and shake up this rotten society" (this goes for all of the world, not the US specifically). At the end of the day, I do think that this is a wrong position, in an ethical sense, but also in a sense of revolutionary tactics.


But yeah, that's what repels me from having the masses dictate the necessities of life. *shudders*There is no single, ahistorical, and blindly stupid entity called "the masses". The working class also reshape themselves in the course of struggles.

Oh yeah, and also this: as FF0000 has said, your notion of social class is most definitely not one emplyoyed by Marxists, anarchists, and revolutionary socialists/communists. Social class in capitalism is best conceived as specific social relations of production, centered on individuals' relatiosnhip to the means of production - separation+non-ownership, lack of control/ownership, control.

Doctors and scientists are also workers, unless a doctor is also a private appropriator of someone elses labour (for instance, the nurses'), or in other words, the owner of private property.

[RGacky3]

I'm not getting into my abortion stance now.


I think Japan and other social democratic countries have this system, but I could be wrong. Nonetheless, I think this would be the best compromise between the failed capitalism we have now and the other extreme.


Japan certainly does not, Germany and Sweeden have a type, where workers representatives hold positions on the board (in germany its half the board, in sweeden it goes up numerically with the amount of workers).

But in my opinion those models of Co-Determination are not enough, because

A: They still leave the final decisions ultimately to the capitalist, the workers have a major input but not a total one.

B: It limits the power of workers to strike and take stronger action, it basically leaves them to fight amung to big money people in the board room, where imo they are weaker.

C: We want a total workers democracy, not a half assed participationary system.

D: There are many cooperative buisiness models within capitalism i.e. workers democracies, and I think those are good models we should look to and support.


I see, but why did they call themselves communists then? Is there any country that succeeded with true communism?


They called themself socialist, and they did so for the same reason dictatorships call themselves democracies, or "people's republics," because its a moralistic propeganda tool, socialism in the third world is extremely popular and has had a strong moral pull.

So they call themselves socialist to justify their regiems, the US called them socialist to smear socialism :).

There is no country, but there are examples, Anarchist Spain is an example of that (until Franco and the Stalinists destroyed it with Guns), Hungary during the Hungarian revolution (untill the USSR sent the tanks there), the Soviet Union before the civil war, the Zapatista territories.

You also have examples like in Argentina where the workers took over the factories in 2001, and continue to run them, and there are more examples.

You have some countries that have taken socialist policies, like universal healthcare, co-determination, and so on, but no socialist countries.


But wouldnt this happen anyway in a communist state? I'm not saying its human nature, but lots of people are lazy, selfish and greedy but ambitious and will find a way to grab power and get something for nothing, just like Stalin did.


No, not if you have mechnisism to get sto that, Stalin would have never happened if there was a functioning democratic and open system.


But these countries are social-democracies with capitalist production systems, not revolutionary left economics.


Sure, but the point stands, there are no socialist economies, only capitalist, state-capitalist, and the mixed-market types, so far only the mixed markets are doing well (over generalization I know).


I don't see a solution, though, do you?

Yes, you fight for socialism, i.e. workers democracy and a non-profit economy, i.e. and economy based on human needs rather than profit.

Worker organization, community organizations, strikes, takeovers, and so on.


I am beginning to get sick of you. You are blowing things WAY out of proportion, and looking too deeply into the context of what I'm saying, and trying to pick out flaws.


I'm taking exactly what you said, i.e.

A: Its impossible to support a gold standard and NOT be an Austrian.
and
B: Its impossible to have government regulation when you have a gold standard.

Both of these are patently wrong.


Supporting a gold standard, in a "free market capitalist system" and supporting government intervention, makes absolutely no sense, the two do not go together at all. You have yet to prove me wrong on this. I have countlessly stated that it is practically impossible for the government to effectively intervene in a money system attached to gold, because the government, nor can a central bank under a gold standard, control the fluctuations. If the government prints money while ignoring the relation that money has to gold, it is NOT A GOLD STANDARD. It is a de facto gold standard. Do you know what the word de facto means?


First of all, the government regulated the economy BEFORE THERE WAS EVEN A FEDERAL RESERVE, they can put on tax and tarriffs, all of which change incentives, they can give government contracts, they can nationalize buisinesses, they can privitize bisinesses, they can ban certain things, they can regulate workplaces, they can redistribute wealth, they can do a shit load of things, the government can control the fluctuations by taxing and holding gold and/or releasing it.

Also it IS a gold standard as long as the money is attached to gold. If you change the value of a dollar from $1=1 ounce and $=1 ounce ITS STILL A GOLD STANDARD,

your also forgetting that gold can and does trade on the commodity market even with a gold standard, which can fluctuate the price.

We HAD A GOLD STANDARD AND A FEDERAL RESERVE FROM 1913 TO 1971, THIS IS A HISTORICAL FACT, If this historical fact does'nt prove you wrong, then your just dilusional and have your head in the sand. This is rediculous, 1913 to 1971, look it up. For goodness sakes, its OK to be wrong sometimes.

[Mutualizm]

I am pleased that you guys actually allow people with different beliefs and ideologies to post here freely without the fear of being booted for content. Very few places dedicated to a specific group of people have so much tolerance for other viewpoints, and it tells a lot about their open-mindedness.
I agree that open-mindedness is important. It's only through discussion and disagreement that ideas can be tried without risking lives.


You guys do ban fascists but strangely enough I can't bring myself to care about them too much. ;)
I'm not a fascist, but I think it's silly to single out a specific ideology to ban while you allow every other one.


Anyway, what I want to know is if I'm really a leftist and if not, where my position is. I'll give a summary of most of my motifs and beliefs and I'll be glad to answer any question to help clarify my position.
Okay.


For a start, I DESPISE American republicans, democrats and any form of social or economic conservative.
Despising the ideas of the republican and democratic party means you're sensible. Despising actual people for buying into them means you're kind of a jerk.


2012[/B]... pathetic.
I, too, which 90% of the population would disappear. The infrastructure would survive that, right? You sound angry and judgmental.


If I had a God, it would be technology. I believe it to be the answer to every problem and that the proper development and utilization of technology can free us all and help us all be independent.
With proper development, sure. You might check out Murray Bookchin's "post-scarcity anarchism." Interesting stuff. But political issues should be addressed in the meantime as well.


I'm a firm individualist and think everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, the only limit being that their freedom should not limit anybody elses freedom.
I agree.


I'm a supporter of a free market but unlike conservative idiots I believe a free market has to be forced to be free by government otherwise it's an oxymoron, just like anarchy.
First, if you support government intervention, what you're supporting is not the free market. Second, whenever a government intercedes between an employee and an employer, it's always, always the latter who benefits. The worker will never benefit long-term from having the government get involved.


I do believe in personal responsibility and I'm very cynical around people who can't live up to my standard, but again unlike right-wingers I believe exploitation is a crime, and any signature on a legal document or any "voluntary" exchange/contract is not voluntary or legal without informed consent.
Right-wingers believe exploitation is a crime. Stop assuming they all watch Fox News. I'm not even a rightist myself, but oversimplifying the ideas of your opponents won't make them go away. As for any voluntary exchange requiring informed consent, does that include the Constitution?


I think fiat money is imaginary and worthless because it represents scarcity instead of value not to mention that it is created out of thin air. The gold standard must be brought back.
The "value" of gold comes from scarcity, too. All you're doing is removing the money one step.


I have a heavy resentment against people with an unwarranted self-importance and my vigorous stance on making morons EARN the respect they demand frequently gets me into conflicts and makes people think I'm an asshole, both on and offline.
Just so you know, assuming people who disagree with you are morons just by virtue of them disagreeing makes you seem to have an unwarranted self-importance.


9 out of 10 forums I visit I get banned from because I questioned a mod and refused to kiss his ass, or some other retard with a high post count that mods are sympathetic to.
Are you sure it wasn't because of your dismissive attitude?


Thus, for the same reason I believe the rich should be heavily taxed, because most of their wealth is made from manipulating the market and not contributing jack shit.
As I said earlier, the government getting involved in anything, ever, always benefits the rich who have the politicians in their pockets.


To me, the rich are the most extreme form of toxic narcissists who I would love to personally "re-educate" some reality into.
Good luck with that.


I support free health care and think all essential services that are in the public interest should be nationalized, but I believe people should pay for college and university because most people who go do so under different pretenses and don't really know what they want, and I don't want my money paying for some privileged turd who can't take his education seriously enough. In most parts of Canada you have to complete an assessment to get funding for college or university which asks you to write a few paragraphs to convince them you are taking your course seriously enough, and I think this system is fine.
What makes you think your opinion is more important than that of the person who says "everyone has a right to be educated so that they can make the best decisions, and that would be best for society at large, but I don't want my tax dollars paying for people who smoke a pack a day knowing it'll kill them?"


I think America's foreign policy is disgusting and outright fascism, and that it needs to stop trashing so much money into that god damn war.
I agree with everything in that statement aside from your use of the word "fascism," because it's technically not accurate.


Military action, in my opinion, should only be used in defense or against a country that blatantly violates the rights of its citizens, such as child labor, forced child marriage like many Islamic countries but for the most part I think minding your own business is the most rational stance.
All wars are justified as being in the defense of the people. Few wars actually are.


And I can't think of anything else to add.

In short, I am a firm individualist who believes in liberty and pursuit of happiness with minimal interference from the government or any other powerful entity, but I never understood why we can't have equality at the same time.
Despite what you said about Democrats... you sound like a Democrat. At least, you sound like a good number of Democrats.


We are all born equal and don't choose how we psychologically become, so despite my cynicism and general aggression towards society, I believe that if every child is nurtured in a caring environment, not made to feel guilty for natural inclinations (religion) and have their interests supported instead of slammed for going against the family tradition, then we shall have peace.
I think that'd bring us a lot closer, at the least.


However, I can't say I support communism like many of you say you do. But your definitions confuse me. You say the USSR wasn't really communist, nor is Cuba or North Korea. What were/are they then?:confused:
Many people here will disagree with me, but I think those places were the natural result of Marx's dismissal of personal freedom. Bakunin called it well in advance. "Liberty without socialism is injustice and inequality, but socialism without liberty is tyranny."

Seriously, though. Nothing personal, but you seem really angry at the wrong people. Relax, and consider who's really screwing the people over. Is it the "taxes are evil" people or the government that skims a little bit off the top of the taxes every time they pass a bill?

[Black_Rose]

Many people here will disagree with me, but I think those places were the natural result of Marx's dismissal of personal freedom. Bakunin called it well in advance. "Liberty without socialism is injustice and inequality, but socialism without liberty is tyranny."

Seriously, though. Nothing personal, but you seem really angry at the wrong people. Relax, and consider who's really screwing the people over. Is it the "taxes are evil" people or the government that skims a little bit off the top of the taxes every time they pass a bill?
"socialism without liberty is tyranny"

I wouldn't consider East Germany to be a tyranny, although they most certainly restricted civil liberties.

Yes, real Marxists do not regard civil liberty highly, at least during revolutionary conditions.

Henry Liu said:


Doubt is reactionary. Every statement is a form of generalization. The test is where the generalized statement leads to. Revolutionaries cannot afford doubt. They must be convinced of the correctness of their ideology. The right to believe that some people should starve while others drink champaign is not a civil right. The right to a decent diet for everyone is. We can have freedom of expression only after the total demise of capitalism. At this moment in history, freedom is a capitalistic tool. Revolutions are not debating societies in search of self gratification for passive intellectuals. Revolutionaries know where they are going and have not time for those who value personal freedom above the need to forge forward the movement's objectives.

emphasis mine


http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archiv.../msg03644.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2001/msg03644.html)


I am not in denial. I know more about the danger China is facing more than anyone else on this list. I just have different interpretations on what is going on in China. The CPC is essentially interested in hanging on to power and this is a good thing. Some in the leadership mistakenly think that the way to hang on to power is to welcome market capitalism. But history has proved that any political party in China flirting with market capitalism, with its inequality and foreign domination, will eventually fall. This is the guarantee that the CPC will sooner and later return to socialism. I will pay any price, including freedom, to preserve socialism in China. The day I support civil liberties in China has to be the day that I become satisfied that the call for civil liberties is not a camouflage for Western capitalist sabotage. Debating China with the Western left is very frustrating, because the Western left is not the enemy, despite the fact that it increasingly acts like one. I do not share the Western left's celebration of the fall of the USSR and Eastern European socialist states, however distorted they might have become before their demise.

emphasis mine

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/)marxism/2001/msg03672.html

[Durutii Column]

Not centralized planning, but strict regulation to ensure corporations do no harm.

That is not a free market then. Stealing from the workers is what corporations are based upon. If the state was really interfering with wage slavery then corporations would put that down very quickly. BTW Free Markets is the oxymoron here
I cannot post links yet but look up Anarchist Communism on Wikipedia.

[#FF0000]

That is not a free market then.

Sure is

[Thirsty Crow]

@Black Rose: Wow, didn't know about that little thing regarding civil liberties and communists. I suppose that I should cancel out my plan on autonomous proletarian writers' group.

And "preserving socialism" in China is...just precious.

[Mutualizm]

@Black Rose: Wow, didn't know about that little thing regarding civil liberties and communists. I suppose that I should cancel out my plan on autonomous proletarian writers' group.

Read some anarcho-communist literature before you throw the baby out with the bathwater and become a Republican. :p

[Black_Rose]

Read some anarcho-communist literature before you throw the baby out with the bathwater and become a Republican. :p
What do you think of the aforementioned Liu comments?

As a M-L, I take them heart. Liu didn't say them publicly, but when I read what he said on that mailing list, it was an epiphany and I realized Liu was correct and he wasn't a lukewarm liberal, but a bona fide, sincere revolutionary. I am indebted to Liu, for his Asia Times columns and his less public remarks on mailing lists, since he is the primary influence from converting me into a mere social democrat into a revolutionary leftist.

[CommunityBeliever]

If I had a God, it would be technology.

- Technological production is based upon its host social system. For example, the Western feudal societies went through a dark age that ended when the Ottoman empire shut down the silk road, sparking the age of discovery in the search for alternative trade routes. New social systems were later formed: mercantilism and capitalism.

It seems that every social system eventually stagnates resulting in some sort of dark age where science and technology do not develop significantly further. In many ways I believe we are going through such a dark age in Western capitalist societies today, for example, information technology hasn't progressed much since the AI winter of the late 80s.

- Technology itself hasn't made life better. People today are more unhealthy because they live a sedentary lifestyle and they consume junk foods such as Twinkies and Froot Loops. Despite having population greater then ever before, people living in the world today are more disconnected and extroverted then ever before. Additionally, people today have increasingly distorted personalities. This is described in the Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement by Jean M. Twenge and Keith Campbell.

Furthermore, people living in capitalist society lack any sense of social stability, so they have to live with the constant fear of failure, which for many people is incredibly stressful. Some people find this too stressful to bear and they take their own lives. Others throw away their life by living in a virtual fantasy world on television or on the computer.

These are some reasons small-scale communities of primitive communists lived better then people do today. People living in modern communes such as the Paris commune had the best of both worlds: industrial technology and social harmony.


Oh wow my post is getting too long. So where do I fit on the political spectrum?


I would say you are a still a non-leftist since you don't recognize the value of social progress.

[Mutualizm]

What do you think of the aforementioned Liu comments?

As a M-L, I take them heart. Liu didn't say them publicly, but when I read what he said on that mailing list, it was an epiphany and I realized Liu was correct and he wasn't a lukewarm liberal, but a bona fide, sincere revolutionary. I am indebted to Liu, for his Asia Times columns and his less public remarks on mailing lists, since he is the primary influence from converting me into a mere social democrat into a revolutionary leftist.
I'm not a fan, because I believe that we discover the best ideas through the conflict of ideas. "Doubt is reactionary" sounds very much like "don't question; just obey." I can't abide by that, because it seems to me that any idea worth its salt can stand up to opposition.

Anyone who asserts an ideology and then turns around and constructs a straw man (non-communists think it's cool for one person to be rich while another starves) and then uses a negative buzzword (which is what "reactionary" is among the revolutionary left) to dismiss the opposition entirely is extremely suspect to me.

[Black_Rose]

I'm not a fan, because I believe that we discover the best ideas through the conflict of ideas. "Doubt is reactionary" sounds very much like "don't question; just obey." I can't abide by that, because it seems to me that any idea worth its salt can stand up to opposition.

Anyone who asserts an ideology and then turns around and constructs a straw man (non-communists think it's cool for one person to be rich while another starves) and then uses a negative buzzword (which is what "reactionary" is among the revolutionary left) to dismiss the opposition entirely is extremely suspect to me.

As a revolutionary leftist, Liu opposes a political system that enables the well connected, usually but not always those who are financially wealthy, to maintain their privileges and influence through exploitation of the economically vulnerable and manipulation of the sentiments and opinions of the general population. Liu sees his primary opposition as morally inferior, illegitimate, and merciless since they actively cause harm through their control of the apparatus of state power, and are not concerned with objective intellectual inquiry, unless it can yield information that helps them retain their power, or relieving the suffering of the human conditions. A revolutionary acknowledge this and believes that it is a moral imperative to abolish the system. A revolutionary is not a Popperian falliblist, at least in matters concerning the socioeconomic system; a revolutionary possesses the mentality of certitude - he knows that the injustices of the system can only be remedied through its dissolution and is thus compelled to overthrow it. "Doubt is reactionary" because doubt causes hesitation and inhibition that mires one in a state of inactivity and prevents him from actively dismantling it.

(Liu did not say that, but that was my interpretation of his comment.)

The fawning myrmidons of the ruling class have harbor reactionary attitudes because they are ideological captives of a cultural environment that seeks to inculcate values compatible with the operation of the system (and they might personally benefit for it). Ignorance of an alternative ideology, despair that the system is insuperable, or the delusion that they would advance under such a system are reasons why one is a reactionary. They help perpetuate the system and encourage conformity by regurgitating apologetic arguments about the supposed benefits of the system or impugning the victims of the system and showing them malice not benevolence. They are lukewarm at best and malevolent perpetrators at worst.

My favorite Bible verse is Revelation 3:15-16 which is Christ's rebuke of the Church of Laodicea, one of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor.
(No, I consider myself to be a weak atheist/agnostic.)


I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
It strike's a nice chord with Liu's remarks.


Doubt is reactionary. Every statement is a form of generalization. The test is where the generalized statement leads to. Revolutionaries cannot afford doubt. They must be convinced of the correctness of their ideology. The right to believe that some people should starve while others drink champaign is not a civil right. The right to a decent diet for everyone is. We can have freedom of expression only after the total demise of capitalism. At this moment in history, freedom is a capitalistic tool. Revolutions are not debating societies in search of self gratification for passive intellectuals. Revolutionaries know where they are going and have not time for those who value personal freedom above the need to forge forward the movement's objectives.
Revolutionaries must eschew the lukewarm!

[Thirsty Crow]

Read some anarcho-communist literature before you throw the baby out with the bathwater and become a Republican. :p
That was a sarcasm. I should have guessed that a lack of suggestive emoticons might prove to be an obstacle to effective communication :lol:

[Tychus]

SIGH, I typed out a large post but it was lost after it asked me to log in again and the back button at that point was useless.

For now, I'm only gonna address this post since I missed it.


Sound like some sort of Ron Paulist Libertarian. It's nowhere near being leftist but I commend you for looking elsewhere than Republicanites and the Democratists and for coming to Revleft.

Ron Paul is another pro-corporate douchebag who believes an unregulated market will make us all prosper and the invisible hand will make everything right. I don't subscribe to faith-based ideologies and it is no different from feudalism's invisible God equivalent who was supposed to eradicate injustice.

Besides, I heard he used to collude with the KKK. Fuck him.

His only redeemable quality is the fact that he's honest and truly believes what he believes, something not found in your typical pencil-necked fucker politician. But since his beliefs are shit, so is his quality. :)

[DinodudeEpic]

Greetings everyone, I have been lurking this site for a long long time, especially OI.

I am pleased that you guys actually allow people with different beliefs and ideologies to post here freely without the fear of being booted for content. Very few places dedicated to a specific group of people have so much tolerance for other viewpoints, and it tells a lot about their open-mindedness.

You guys do ban fascists but strangely enough I can't bring myself to care about them too much. ;)

Anyway, what I want to know is if I'm really a leftist and if not, where my position is. I'll give a summary of most of my motifs and beliefs and I'll be glad to answer any question to help clarify my position.

For a start, I DESPISE American republicans, democrats and any form of social or economic conservative. I think they are a disease that retards innovation and progression and wish they would fucking disappear. Religious dipshits too, and its almost 2012... pathetic.

If I had a God, it would be technology. I believe it to be the answer to every problem and that the proper development and utilization of technology can free us all and help us all be independent.

I'm a firm individualist and think everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, the only limit being that their freedom should not limit anybody elses freedom.

I'm a supporter of a free market but unlike conservative idiots I believe a free market has to be forced to be free by government otherwise it's an oxymoron, just like anarchy.

I do believe in personal responsibility and I'm very cynical around people who can't live up to my standard, but again unlike right-wingers I believe exploitation is a crime, and any signature on a legal document or any "voluntary" exchange/contract is not voluntary or legal without informed consent.

I think fiat money is imaginary and worthless because it represents scarcity instead of value not to mention that it is created out of thin air. The gold standard must be brought back.

I have a heavy resentment against people with an unwarranted self-importance and my vigorous stance on making morons EARN the respect they demand frequently gets me into conflicts and makes people think I'm an asshole, both on and offline. 9 out of 10 forums I visit I get banned from because I questioned a mod and refused to kiss his ass, or some other retard with a high post count that mods are sympathetic to.

Thus, for the same reason I believe the rich should be heavily taxed, because most of their wealth is made from manipulating the market and not contributing jack shit. To me, the rich are the most extreme form of toxic narcissists who I would love to personally "re-educate" some reality into.

I support free health care and think all essential services that are in the public interest should be nationalized, but I believe people should pay for college and university because most people who go do so under different pretenses and don't really know what they want, and I don't want my money paying for some privileged turd who can't take his education seriously enough. In most parts of Canada you have to complete an assessment to get funding for college or university which asks you to write a few paragraphs to convince them you are taking your course seriously enough, and I think this system is fine.

I think America's foreign policy is disgusting and outright fascism, and that it needs to stop trashing so much money into that god damn war.

Military action, in my opinion, should only be used in defense or against a country that blatantly violates the rights of its citizens, such as child labor, forced child marriage like many Islamic countries but for the most part I think minding your own business is the most rational stance.

And I can't think of anything else to add.

In short, I am a firm individualist who believes in liberty and pursuit of happiness with minimal interference from the government or any other powerful entity, but I never understood why we can't have equality at the same time.

We are all born equal and don't choose how we psychologically become, so despite my cynicism and general aggression towards society, I believe that if every child is nurtured in a caring environment, not made to feel guilty for natural inclinations (religion) and have their interests supported instead of slammed for going against the family tradition, then we shall have peace.

However, I can't say I support communism like many of you say you do. But your definitions confuse me. You say the USSR wasn't really communist, nor is Cuba or North Korea. What were/are they then?:confused:

Oh wow my post is getting too long. So where do I fit on the political spectrum?

Well, I do agree with plenty of your ideas. The exceptions being making people pay for universities , and your gold standard. I do agree that fiat money is really just made up by the state, and corporations in the case of the federal reserve. But, gold standard has a history of being abused by the rich. A bimetallic standard would be better since there is more money and it has an actually real backing. Public colleges should be free for anyone. Private (Cooperatively owned.) colleges should do as they please.

However, I want a free market with cooperatives. Corporations would be abolished, and so would all forms of wage labor. A cooperative is a business that is shared and controlled democratically by it's workers.

Edit: Note that I only read the opening post, and his later posts may actually be things that I disagree with.

[Jimmie Higgins]

We can't be realistically classless. Simply put, there are people like doctors or scientists whose roles are much more important than other regular people.Well I don't mean class in terms of how much someone makes in wages, I mean what their relationship to production is like. Scientists and doctors are not ruling class - they are professionals and occupy a sort of grey area because they make a living doing a service in society, but don't make their living through getting profit off the work of others. Their position in society means that they can't fight for their class interests alone and must ally with either the capitalists or the workers.

So they are also not independent producers because they rely on educational facilities or private companies or hospitals in order to do their research or practice. Because of this, a society can be reorganized in such a way that instead of scientists working for a company developing Viagra they would instead do research through a public university or some other public organization and rather than report to an unelected board of investors or appointed public trustees, they would report to an elected board of educators or other scientists. The decisions made now about what to prioritize research on etc would still happen, but just under a totally different set of interests, i.e. what is the best use of our resources to help the most people rather than what is the best use of our resources to turn a buck.

And as far as "important work" - well yes some work is more SPECIALIZED and takes more education. So the first thing to do would be to ease the work-load of all workers (which could be done immediately after a revolution and bring about an end to unemployment) and make higher education on-going and free, based on interest and dedication only. But these specialized tasks don't exist in a vaccume - their job is important, but a doctor could not do their job without nurses, paramedics, distribution services to bring medical equipment and supplies, workers in factories to manufacture needed materials, janitors to keep the hospital clean and operational etc. All work done as part of a collective effort should have some collective say in what gets done and how it gets done - organization from the bottom up as opposed to a board or executives making these kinds of decisions from the top.

Workers may decide that some specialized tasks get extra compensation if they are difficult tasks or shortages of other specialized workers means that the ones with that skill would be needed to work longer hours than people with more general skill-level jobs which could be spread out and shared so that people only have to do them 15 hours a week or whatever. But this does not create a new class that can take over society, they would just be better compensated but would have no way to take that extra comfort or wage and then re-create capitalism with it. Because of issues like these, I think workers will need to set up "state" structures at first in order to re-organize society and try and iron out the inequalities in skills and education and access to resources in capitalist societies. As society is reshaped democratically along the lines of people's needs rather than profit, then these "state" structures will be superfluous and can be dropped.

[Tychus]

That's assuming anarchism advocates for complete lack of any sort of order and aims to plunge the world into some Mad Max/Fist Of the North Star post-apocalyptic wasteland.

It does not.

It seeks to organize society differently -- under non-hierarchical, horizontal methods of organization -- and destroying all systems of class.

Let's be realistic here. The implementation of such a system would turn out nothing like the intentions of its philosophy. Not everybody in a position of autonomy will be as generous as you or me if they were in the same position.

It would be mob-rule and mob-morality. Hated, stigmatized people would get unfair trials and the bureaucratic system would be inoperable.

Right-libertarians say the same thing about letting the super-rich do whatever they want and hope they will be benevolent. Don't be stupid.


Dawg lemme tell you, being a self-righteous misanthrope ain't a good look.

Maybe, but it is nonetheless how I feel. How to be optimistic about an overpopulated population with an epidemic of narcissism? Pay everyone much higher wages and no more starving population, then what? They shit out three kids each and in 50 years we have twice the starving population than last time. It's this lack of respect for the sanctity of life that pisses me off.

And with a highly darwinistic system as fucked up as we have today, one hopes it puts the bastards in their place and realize what insufferable, selfish pieces of shit they really were and making three young innocent lives inherit their mess.

It is the hope of the purveyors of darwinistic Ayn Rand-like systems that it will enforce a sense of reality and respect to people like my mother that grew up in a socialist country and is very used to getting her way. She's some of the most intellectually-shallow, classic examples of shrewd stereotypical sluts with the most annoying accent you could ever imagine, yet she's a teacher and just recently announced to me that she got a "complimentary" Masters Degree (SURE, OKAY) because she worked such a long time at that faculty and blah blah blah everybody loves her because she's such a perfect saint blah blah. She never hesitates to talk about herself and exaggerate achievements for praise and attention. It's disgusting and has destroyed our family.

This is the kind of narcissistic attitude socialist systems breed.

Sadly, the other system does too and instead of being survival of the fittest it turned out to be survival of the most retarded douchebags with a talent for talking bullshit and making people believe it. That's American capitalism, and that's how you get rich.


We're not so different, you and I

and so take it from me

understand and come to terms with the fact that you are a stupid, cowardly animal like every other human being on this planet.

At least I possess modesty that you would rarely find in anyone else. I don't claim my existence is justified. It isn't. I am standing on the shoulders of giants that have slaved away generously so people including myself can live better lives than they did. The capable have always been taking care of the incapable, and my question is why? What percent of the idiot population today had ever even entertained this thought before? And THEY are gonna walk up to me and be attention whores and flaunt their delusional pride and a prestige they never earned? DIE, useless cocksucker.


Being a doctor or a scientist generally doesn't give you some sort of political power over people, though. They might make more money, but a doctor or a scientist doesn't have near the amount of power a CEO does.

A CEO shouldn't have a fraction of the power and wealth they do, but a doctor/scientist definitely should. But since you said they should reap more rewards, we are in agreement. I assumed classless meant that we all make the same income.


Just wanted to come back to this.

Get rid of preconceived notions and read things yourself, silly.

u no dis

Thats why I came here. ;)

[#FF0000]

This is the kind of narcissistic attitude socialist systems breed.

Whatever country she's from, dawg, you know it's far from what we'd call socialist.


The capable have always been taking care of the incapable, and my question is why?

What


What percent of the idiot population today had ever even entertained this thought before?

Dawg, you say "i'm hella modest because i understand i am a dumb animal like everyone else" and then you say this.


A CEO shouldn't have a fraction of the power and wealth they do, but a doctor/scientist definitely should. But since you said they should reap more rewards, we are in agreement. I assumed classless meant that we all make the same income.

Nah, our main goal is abolition of the wage system. "Income" doesn't really play into it at all.

[Judicator]

Stop throwing around the word reactionary so freely.
Reactionary: of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reaction), especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/politics); opposing political or social change.

One can believe in the free market and be a leftist.

You people seem to always claim that the idea that two people can agree to exchange services for whatever price they agree upon (a free market) is "reactionary."

Re-instituting slavery would be political change, but people opposing that probably wouldn't be called a "reactionary" on these forums.

[Tychus]

Whatever country she's from, dawg, you know it's far from what we'd call socialist.

Let's see: she made a similar wage as a lowly accountant as a university teacher, she got free healthcare and housing if she ever needed it and did not need a job to live comfortably. The university did not even have a choice but to let her enroll regardless of her preliminary qualifications because of the system at the time. She had everything spoonfed to her, and she grew up with a very aggressive sense of entitlement because she never was challenged to grow out of this 6-year-old-child infamy, only become accustomed to everyone else working for her so she can get her way.

And a "real" socialist system wouldn't empower these kinds of people and encourage their behavior? How?


What

It is the very few revolutionaries like Tesla or whoever invented the fire or wheel that bettered everybody's lives just so they can die in poverty and be forgotten and never receive a shred of respect.


Dawg, you say &quot;i'm hella modest because i understand i am a dumb animal like everyone else&quot; and then you say this.

Because its true. I don't even believe in pride or self-respect for the simple fact that Tesla is responsible for my life not being 50 times harder than it is right now and me not contributing jack shit to the advancement of technology. That's how motherfucking modest I am. Tell this to some random dumbshit and see how forthcoming he will be to the fact that he's useless, made with a broken condom.

Honesty is my pride, I know exactly where my place is.


Nah, our main goal is abolition of the wage system. &quot;Income&quot; doesn't really play into it at all.

So you can still get rich in communism? Interesting.

I don't mean to be the 500th guy to ask, but who will decide how much income someone will get? Would it really be possible to institute without the vaunted "big government" right-wingers talk about?


You people seem to always claim that the idea that two people can agree to exchange services for whatever price they agree upon (a free market) is "reactionary."

Why do you assume such agreements are voluntary without standards set to ensure they aren't coercive? Reactionary might be stretching it, but it is a rather backwards-ass uncivil system that inevitably becomes authoritarian and oppressive.


Re-instituting slavery would be political change, but people opposing that probably wouldn't be called a "reactionary" on these forums.

You're an idiot. Slavery is in the past, it has been extinguished. Those wishing to re-institute it would be rolling back radical changes, the very opposite of making them, so they would be hardcore reactionaries.

If you're gonna reply, let it not be arguing semantics.