Where do I fit?

[Dead Organism]

I know that I'm definitely towards the left side of the spectrum on the political compass. (Very bottom left.) I follow Marxist thought and am very egalitarian. I just don't know what to identify myself as if someone asks what ideology I follow.

I believe that money is unneeded and harmful for man. That people who are able should work in assisting one another and are capable of working for the pure purpose of helping one another. Bringing forth progress for the conditions of mankind and the environment. I feel that a strong government is needed to regulate and reassure safe, comfortable lives for the common people. The government should not be harsh but merciful to man and never focus on punishment but rehabilitation even in the harshest of circumstances.

Safety, comfort, love and freedom should be the top of everybody's priority list.

This way of society should not be only for those living in whatever area but should be the way of the world, for we are citizens of the world.

Nobody should be richer than any other. Pure classlessness whatever they may or may not do for the benefit of others.
(Though people should be encouraged to help one another and the world.)

I know what I stand for but what do I address myself as if asked?

[hatzel]

I follow Marxist thought


what do I address myself as if asked?Oh, I dunno...Marxist, maybe? :blink:

[roy]

Don't worry about titles too much. Not really enough information to say. Maybe an authoritarian socialist of some strain? It's not that important.

[Deicide]

Surely ''strong government'' and ''Communism'' is an oxymoron?

[roy]

Surely ''strong government'' and ''Communism'' is an oxymoron?

That was my immediate reaction, but maybe he's talking about a transitional workers' gov't or a just a horizontal administration? If not then OP is basically 'leftist'.

[Prinskaj]

Surely ''strong government'' and ''Communism'' is an oxymoron?
Perhaps he means as in we need a strong government under capitalism, i.e. A large welfare state, which works in the interest of the workers..
This would still be an oxymoron, as a "workers' state" under capitalism is still impossible.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I know what I stand for but what do I address myself as if asked?
Since you say you follow Marxist thought, why not just call yourself a Marxist, and as you learn more about various tendencies of Marxism, perhaps you'll find one that suits you.

[citizen of industry]

Yeah, you are a marxist. And don't just read and "follow Marxist thought." Reading books isn't going to change the world, it just might point you in the right direction. Take some action, organize or be organized, and then maybe you'll decide on a better name. Or maybe you'll decide "Marxist" is enough.

[daft punk]

Trotskyist. A strong government is only needed as a temporary measure.

[The Young Pioneer]

Don't label yourself. It doesn't matter all that much.

The more specific you get with names (As an example: From Marx-> To Lenin-> To Stalin->To Hoxha->To Whatever), the more you alienate yourself from the other leftists who may disagree with those particular leaders. Same could be said for liberals, conservatives, etc.

Matter of fact, maybe I'm a naive optimist, but I believe the majority of people regardless of political alliance desire to do what's "right" and find the best affiliation they believe will go about that. So I don't entirely hate even US republicans.

But maybe this is why my Marxist friends consider me non-revolutionary.:rolleyes:

[Caj]

Just identify yourself as a Marxist or socialist. Don't get caught up in what "ism" you identify with. The best "ism" is skepticism.

[Deicide]

I personally cringe when I have use the words ''Communism'' or ''Socialism'' when I'm trying to explain what they mean, it's bit counter-productive to say the least. :laugh: There's too much baggage attached to them. All thanks to the regimes of the 20th century.

[daft punk]

Communist is definitely a word to avoid. People are rightly repelled by the Stalinist dictatorships which are more or less defunct now anyway, except China and North Korea, two shitholes to say the least. Oh, and Cuba. Cuba actually could go sort of socialist quite easily but it looks like the regime is gonna do a China.

Socialist is better, but the baggage there comes from reformist parties who went into government through elections and then carried out capitalism's dirty work.

So Trotskyist remains the only credible line.

[hatzel]

So Trotskyist remains the only credible line.

Is that a fact, is it? By which I mean is that a fact? Factual? How does that even carry on from what you were saying anyway? How does this make sense? Do you just call yourself a Trotskyist because it's got a petty reputation than other possible labels? Is that the basis of your politics? Is that a fact, is it? Factual?

[human strike]

Let me quote you Larry Law in Spectacular Times:

"In the Society of the Spectacle ideologies have become commodities. They are packaged and offered to us for consumption. We wander along the shelves of an ideological supermarket inviting someone to sell us their product. We look for prepackaged ideas that we can adopt and live by - convenience 'foods' that cut out the necessity for deciding what we really want and developing a theory to get it. "I'll buy that!" - says the convinced shopper in the ideological supermarket. How revealing that phrase is - the highest compliment of the true consumer."

Don't consume Marx - live him! Revolutionary self-theory is the way to go.

[Brosip Tito]

The only way to find out "what you are" is to read, and think about what you read. We can't say you are X or Z, based on a few sentences. First and foremost you should read as much Marx as possible. Make your own mind up, and read some Lenin, some Trotsky, Luxemburg and whoever else. There are all kinds of minor and major differences between Marxists. From left communists to Stalinists.

Always, always question and read as much as possible.

[daft punk]

Is that a fact, is it? By which I mean is that a fact? Factual? How does that even carry on from what you were saying anyway? How does this make sense? Do you just call yourself a Trotskyist because it's got a petty reputation than other possible labels? Is that the basis of your politics? Is that a fact, is it? Factual?

"The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness [Diesseitigkeit] of his thinking, in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question."
Karl Marx

[NewLeft]

Hope you ditch the political compass, the whole libertarian/authoritarian thing is misleading.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree that it is best to read a great deal and take your time before plunging into the sectarian divisions amongst the left. I agree with Order Reigns to read as much Marx as possible. In addition to Marx I recommend Rosa Luxemberg for her critique of Bolshevism's dictatorial tendencies, and in addition to Rosa as a primary source i recommend reading widely about the Russian Revolution, and avoid limiting yourself to Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky as they are highly biased sources. Finally, don't overlook the writings of Antonio Gramsci on class hegemony, national-popular culture, and "The State and Civil Society".

[daft punk]

"The Bolsheviks have shown that they are capable of everything that a genuine revolutionary party can contribute within the limits of historical possibilities. They are not supposed to perform miracles."

Rosa Luxemburg

shit, what happened to my Classic Quotes thread?

[Kassad]

If I see one more quote in this thread, I might vomit. Honestly, think for yourself and let that take you. Because seeking to became a part of the struggle to emancipate humanity will lead you into the class struggle. "-isms" come later, if you even choose to take them.

[hatzel]

"The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness [Diesseitigkeit] of his thinking, in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question."
Karl Marx

...what does that have to do with anything? How does that answer why, even if we are to assume that 'communism' and 'socialism' are (as you seem to believe) so sullied as words that they cannot be used at all, one has no choice but to call oneself a Trotskyist? Of all things...nor does it answer the secondary question of whether (given your seeming willingness to pick political labels based on what you consider most 'socially acceptable') you call yourself a Trotskyist simply because you wish to distance yourself from the pretty bad reputation all things Soviet-Stalin-etc. have in your country...though I'm not all that interested in an answer to that question...

[Ismail]

Hope you ditch the political compass, the whole libertarian/authoritarian thing is misleading.Quite right. There's a decent critique of it here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm


The use of terms like "freedom" and "liberty" are also problematic in terms of trying to understand politics objectively because these are terms that are highly propagandistic and are typically self defined. Ask any ten different people in the world what their political views represent and you can get ten people telling you that they stand for freedom, while one is a Communist, one is a member of the KKK, one is a wealthy capitalist oil tycoon, and one is a poor person on welfare. They all have completely different views, yet to themselves they are all "fighting for freedom".

When members of the Southern Confederacy broke away from the United States in 1861, they did so proclaiming that they were defending their freedom to hold slaves. What exactly is "economic freedom"? Does that include the freedom to form a monopoly? Does a "Libertarian" regard regulations that prevent the formation of monopolies to be higher forms of economic freedom or are they seen as economic restrictions? What about the free and independent formation of unions? Do laws preventing the formation of unions count as a point in favor of "economic freedom" or against it? Issues like these are why terms such as "freedom" are useless in analyzing political ideology....

Effectively, the other two systems, the Nolan system and Political Compass system, only measure degrees of regulation, however this is insufficient, because it really tells you nothing about what is being regulated, the reasoning behind the regulations, or the intended goal. They also make the incorrect assertion that "regulations" and "freedom" are inherently contradictory, while this is not really true - it all depends on the nature and execution of the regulations.

For example, regulations that prevent slavery increase freedom. Rules and regulations are not by definition restrictive on the whole, as their net effect can be to facilitate liberty. For example, by having traffic lights we can regulate traffic in a way to reduce congestion and accidents, therefore the rules actually facilitate freedom of travel, they don't restrict it.

By referring to Left and Right purely in terms of laissez-faire vs. authoritarian, things like regulations preventing racism and regulations enforcing racism with equal degrees cannot be properly depicted. However, if we consider racism to be an issue that can be viewed in terms of Left and Right, and we view anti-racist ideology as "Leftist" and racist ideology as "Rightist", then strict regulation of racism, either to prevent it or promote it, can be shown as authoritarian Left and Right policy accordingly, while policy that takes no stance on racism at all is simply Liberal. Thus Affirmative Action is seen not as a "Liberal" program, but as a socially Leftist program that is "Left of Liberal." Likewise, the Nazi use of the State to enforce racial genocide is obviously not "Liberal" or even Leftist, it's an example of the authoritarian Right.

Obviously, in this case, both Affirmative Action and the Holocaust are examples of the use of State authority to regulate matters of race. According to both the Political Compass and the Nolan Chart these two policies would have to be lumped together on their political spectrums, which plainly makes no sense.

[Ostrinski]

Fuck ideologies

Drop acid fight god

[Lanky Wanker]

Can't wait for Rafiq to see this one.

[Zukunftsmusik]

So Trotskyist remains the only credible line.


Trotskyist. A strong government is only needed as a temporary measure.

look. I have no problem with you labeling yourself as a trotskyist. but I have a serious problem with your view on trotskyism as the only true, revolutionary path or whatever. To agree mainly with Trotsky and his writings is one thing. But by always holding up trotskyism as the only ideology and act like all other tendencies/ideologies have nothing to them only because they aren't trotskyism.... well, it doesn't lead anywhere. You seriously have to leave your sectarianism behind you. You're way of "debating" chokes the real debate here.

And I wonder why. Why do you cling on to trotskyism, without giving a real reason for it? (randomly quoting Marx doesn't help) Why do you do this? What do you benefit from this? Even more important: what do the debates on here benefit from it? I'm afraid the answer is nada.

I'm sorry if this seems unfriendly or mean, but I actually find your posts almost provoking because you look like a trotskyist spambot, not a real debater. Digging yourself into deep ideological ditches doesn't help. Anyone. At all.

[Rooster]

There really shouldn't be any great dividing tendencies or as many bitter arguments here. It's not like Marxism is rocket science.

[Ostrinski]

look. I have no problem with you labeling yourself as a trotskyist. but I have a serious problem with your view on trotskyism as the only true, revolutionary path or whatever. To agree mainly with Trotsky and his writings is one thing. But by always holding up trotskyism as the only ideology and act like all other tendencies/ideologies have nothing to them only because they aren't trotskyism.... well, it doesn't lead anywhere. You seriously have to leave your sectarianism behind you. You're way of "debating" chokes the real debate here.

And I wonder why. Why do you cling on to trotskyism, without giving a real reason for it? (randomly quoting Marx doesn't help) Why do you do this? What do you benefit from this? Even more important: what do the debates on here benefit from it? I'm afraid the answer is nada.

I'm sorry if this seems unfriendly or mean, but I actually find your posts almost provoking because you look like a trotskyist spambot, not a real debater. Digging yourself into deep ideological ditches doesn't help. Anyone. At all.Indeed. Daft punk tires to turn every single thread to a Bolshevik discussion.

[The Idler]

If you find yourself getting bogged down in Marx or don't fancy a hefty read, then speak to a few groups and see if they can offer a more concise summary of their ideas. Compare these with other groups.

[human strike]

The only way to find out "what you are" is to read, and think about what you read. We can't say you are X or Z, based on a few sentences. First and foremost you should read as much Marx as possible. Make your own mind up, and read some Lenin, some Trotsky, Luxemburg and whoever else. There are all kinds of minor and major differences between Marxists. From left communists to Stalinists.

Always, always question and read as much as possible.

I completely disagree. Theory should only supplement action. It's all about praxis. Simply reading is the path to dogma, ideology and delusion.

[svenne]

Yeah. General Strike is pretty much right. If you're thinking of getting organized, a good start is to look at what organizations that does exist in your city, and if they have any activity beyond the "let's sell this newspaper and whine on this and that". It's pretty worthless being a Luxemburgist-maoist-Bukharinist if that just makes you unable to work with other people. In the end - people get provoced by actions, rather than theoretical debates. At least in real life. I've been standing in picket lines when social democrats, trotskyists and anarchists were participating at the same time. Nobody really gave a crap about political differences when the police attacked with horses...

[o well this is ok I guess]

I'll tell you where you fit
Revleft!

[Angelo.Porchetta]

I believe that money is unneeded and harmful for man.

Sounds an awful lot like Anarcho-communism if you ask me.

[Ismail]

Sounds an awful lot like Anarcho-communism if you ask me.It also sounds an awful lot like the Khmer Rouge, so yeah.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

There really shouldn't be any great dividing tendencies or as many bitter arguments here. It's not like Marxism is rocket science.
Well, that's why the revolutionary Left has made itself irrelevant. Too much focus on differences and not enough on what we do agree on. I mean, does anyone think a successful working class revolution will see workers uniformly in agreement across all issues?

[Veovis]

It also sounds an awful lot like the Khmer Rouge, so yeah.

Well, I'm neither of those things and I agree. I just think it's going to take some time after a revolution to phase out money altogether.