Without an ism

[SDAN]

I don't like pure capitalism. I would allow enterprising to a limit where people cannot get too rich. Also people couldn't inherit money or any material which could give them economic benefits such as land or a house etc. I'm talking about half-socialistic- half-capitalistic society.

I don't like collectivism because it restricts peoples freedom. From my opinion society should be very individualistic.

I wouldn't call myself communist or capitalist and I hate fascism. I think I'm more like libertarianist mixed with leftist values.

So, what am I called "officially"?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm not sure. I think you need to spend some time studying political theory before you worry about labels. Your statements are all over the map and, frankly, seem confused and contradictory. Which is why I suggest learning more before you concern yourself with labels.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Social democrat

[NewLeft]

I would like to direct you to this thread on anarchist material:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/any-suggestions-books-t169336/index.html?&highlight=anarchist+reading

The issue of collectivism vs individualism is mostly artificial, it is not that you place the interests of the collective over yourself.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Social democrat

Pretty much this.

...well, you got a title without an 'ism,' congrats.

[SDAN]

As you see I haven't really read anything. I have made solutions to social problems mostly in my head. That's why they might be contradictory. Reading is not really my thing, I rather like to experience things. But of course there's no sense to go through all the worst things in the world which could be avoided by reading.

[ArrowLance]

Liberal one way or the other.

[Railyon]

Mutualism might interest you, maybe. Huge maybe.

[daft punk]

I don't like pure capitalism. I would allow enterprising to a limit where people cannot get too rich. Also people couldn't inherit money or any material which could give them economic benefits such as land or a house etc. I'm talking about half-socialistic- half-capitalistic society.

I don't like collectivism because it restricts peoples freedom. From my opinion society should be very individualistic.

I wouldn't call myself communist or capitalist and I hate fascism. I think I'm more like libertarianist mixed with leftist values.

So, what am I called "officially"?

A social democrat. However this basically means capitalism, with a few reforms.

Social democrats give socialism a bad name. They get in government every few years and have to do capitalism's dirty work, shit on the workers. So next time the workers vote for some rabid right winger who shits on them even more. Then in desperation some of the workers at the bottom turn to fascism, which if it ever got into power would do a lot worse than take a dump on the workers.

Social democrats perpetuate the system, give it the pretence of democracy and choice. The choice of being shat on, or shat on slightly more.

In Britain, for 20 years the Tories were considered unelectable. These were the people the older generation usually voted for. But New Labour took social democracy into Tory territory and the 'blue water' vanished. The workers rightly punished the jumped up middle class twats at the polls.

[daft punk]

Liberal one way or the other.

This is a term Americans use differently to the rest of the world so needs to be used carefully.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Ask yourself these questions:
1. Do you support the workers controlling the means of production?
2. Do you support the abolishment of private property (different than possession)?
3. Do you support using revolutionary ends to achieve these goals?

If you answered yes to all 3 question (or AT LEAST the first two) then you can call yourself a socialist.

Note on number 2: the abolition of private property means having the workers control the means of production instead of the capitalists. Your watch is yours, while the factory it is made in belongs to the workers.

[SDAN]

-People should get reward from their real working actions, not from lying in a hammock and drinking beer while their shares enlarge their wallets.

-I don't like weapons nor bloodshed.

That's all I can say at the moment.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

-People should get reward from their real working actions, not from lying in a hammock and drinking beer while their shares enlarge their wallets.

-I don't like weapons nor bloodshed.

That's all I can say at the moment.

Revolutionary action doesn't necessarily mean bloodshed and weapons. This could occur through a general strike or mass protests (like in Egypt), etc.

[ColonelCossack]

Yeah as people have said you're basically a social democrat.

[Omsk]

Based on what he said so far,he should be restricted.

[daft punk]

Based on what he said so far,he should be restricted.

oh the irony. At least he doesnt support the mass murder of socialists.

SDAN, welcome to the forum.

[SDAN]

I'm just too skeptic to believe in revolution. You are the judges if I belong here or not.

[Brosip Tito]

-People should get reward from their real working actions, not from lying in a hammock and drinking beer while their shares enlarge their wallets.

-I don't like weapons nor bloodshed.

That's all I can say at the moment.
I know you mentioned that you aren't a reader, however, you need to read to learn.

I would suggest starting with some Marx and Engels:

The Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

The Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/)

Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/06/09.htm)

Wage Labour and Capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm)

Critique of the Gotha Programme
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm)
That should give you an okay understanding of communism.

To deter you from the belief that reforming capitalism is possible to either eliminate it or make it work better, I suggest this:

Reform or Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm) by Rosa Luxemburg

Happy reading!

[theblackmask]

I know you mentioned that you aren't a reader, however, you need to read to learn.

I would suggest starting with some Marx and Engels:

The Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

The Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/)

Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/06/09.htm)

Wage Labour and Capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm)

Critique of the Gotha Programme
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm)
That should give you an okay understanding of communism.

To deter you from the belief that reforming capitalism is possible to either eliminate it or make it work better, I suggest this:

Reform or Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm) by Rosa Luxemburg

Happy reading!

The guy says he's not much of a reader and you go and give him a bunch of titles that are over a hundred years old.

Honestly, SDAN, you sound like one of those mythical anarcho-capitalists which only exist on the internet :D

[ВАЛТЕР]

Sounds like some kind of a hippy to me...

[human strike]

I think you're thinking too much. The best way to achieve your desires is to pro-actively realise them (even if you do not know what they are). Praxis, comrade, praxis. Your conception of progress shouldn't be an ideology you purchase and consume, it should be something you figure out for yourself. Your own theory doesn't need a label or brand and you'd probably find yourself best served by avoiding "isms" and figuring things out for yourself with help from other philosophers of course, but never accept all of what anyone says be they Marxists, Anarchists or whatever. The point is to transcend ideology, not to embrace it.

[The Jay]

Based on what he said so far,he should be restricted.

He's new, he should have a chance to hear our opinions and debate for a little while. He may change his mind. I wasn't sure what I was when I first came here.

[Manic Impressive]

-People should get reward from their real working actions, not from lying in a hammock and drinking beer while their shares enlarge their wallets.

-I don't like weapons nor bloodshed.

That's all I can say at the moment.
May I suggest The Right to Be Lazy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/) by Paul Lafargue.

Consider this; what is in the best interests of a business owner? Their interest lies in gaining the most profit from their investment that they can. How do they do this? They do this by keeping the cost of production to a minimum, primarily this means keeping wages as low as possible. To keep wages as low as possible they need to create competition for jobs, which is why we have unemployment, without it economic growth would be even less sustainable than it is now, which means less profits for them, unemployment is a must in capitalism.

Also Marx and Engles both adhered to the statement "peacefully if we can forcibly if we must". Although there has always been a fetishisation of violence by some. However, it is utopian to be completely pacifist.

[SDAN]

Sounds like some kind of a hippy to me...
Yea I am some kind of synthetic hippie.


Also Marx and Engles both adhered to the statement "peacefully if we can forcibly if we must". Although there has always been a fetishisation of violence by some. However, it is utopian to be completely pacifist.
I'm not completely pacifist. I have shot to targets with guns but I have never killed any living organisms with them.


Your own theory doesn't need a label or brand and you'd probably find yourself best served by avoiding "isms" and figuring things out for yourself with help from other philosophers of course, but never accept all of what anyone says be they Marxists, Anarchists or whatever. The point is to transcend ideology, not to embrace it.
I need much more time and knowledge for sure.

[Firebrand]

If as you say you aren't much of a reader, you might be best off starting by reading some leftist fiction, to be honest most of the political texts are heavy going even for hardcore readers. Build your way up to it slowly, read some fiction, read some pamphlets, watch a few films, then try some political books. And whatever you do don't try to read Capital on your first try.

[Rooster]

You're a capitalist. A capitalist reformer maybe, but still a capitalist. Socialism is the over coming of capitalism. When people say "we're making all this shit but we're never making shit people need" that's socialism.

If this person is pretty young then I'd give them time to develop.

[Brosip Tito]

The guy says he's not much of a reader and you go and give him a bunch of titles that are over a hundred years old.

Honestly, SDAN, you sound like one of those mythical anarcho-capitalists which only exist on the internet :DApparently you aren't much of a reader either.

I stated "I know you said you aren't much of a reader, but you have to read to learn" at the very beginning of the post.

So what, pray tell, is wrong with suggesting reading Marx? Please enlighten me with your new age anti-capitalist knowledge, oh great utopian.

[Bolshevik Feminist]

Reactionary social democrat traitor and enemy of the revolution.

[Manic Impressive]

If as you say you aren't much of a reader, you might be best off starting by reading some leftist fiction, to be honest most of the political texts are heavy going even for hardcore readers. Build your way up to it slowly, read some fiction, read some pamphlets, watch a few films, then try some political books. And whatever you do don't try to read Capital on your first try.
Yes this is a good idea. When I first started studying Marx I hadn't read a book in over 6 years. I think that confirms me as someone who was previously not a reader :D. There's a lot of great stuff available on youtube documentaries and such and many explaining Marxism "capitalism 101 by Brendanmcooney" is very good. Start slow and build up to the more difficult stuff I made the mistake of reading capital vol 1 too soon and I think it actually ended up setting me back as I didn't properly understand it.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Bolshevik Femenist

"Reactionary social democrat traitor and enemy of the revolution. "

In other words: undecided

He just needs to read some more books before he can decide.

[Brosip Tito]

Reactionary social democrat traitor and enemy of the revolution.
This is why I fear Stalinists leading a revolution.

[human strike]

Stalinists don't lead revolutions, they lead suicide squads.

[Art Vandelay]

Stalinists don't lead revolutions, they lead suicide squads.

The only analogy dealing with ``leading`` applicable to stalinists is that it is like a blind and deaf elderly man with a cane and a fresh hip surgery leading other blind and deaf men equally disabled.

[daft punk]

This is why I fear Stalinists leading a revolution.

Not much chance of that is there?


Stalinists don't lead revolutions, they lead suicide squads.

You mean execution squads?


The only analogy dealing with ``leading`` applicable to stalinists is that it is like a blind and deaf elderly man with a cane and a fresh hip surgery leading other blind and deaf men equally disabled.

over a cliff

[TheRedAnarchist23]

So what is the difference between trotskyism and stalinism?

I know stalinism is the most authoritarian form of government I know, but I would like to know what differentiates it from trotskysm, since you both seem to think you are so different from one another.

[daft punk]

So what is the difference between trotskyism and stalinism?

I know stalinism is the most authoritarian form of government I know, but I would like to know what differentiates it from trotskysm, since you both seem to think you are so different from one another.

crikey, massive question.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#stalinism

Let me start with Two Stage Theory or Stagism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-stage_theory
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm

couple of links there

The idea is a Stalinist one. It is basically an interpretation of Marxism which says that a backward country should forget about socialism and go for a capitalist revolution, to establish capitalism.


For instance, this is what Stalin wrote to Mao in 1948:

"To Terebin to be passed to Mao Zedong.

We have received both letters from Comrade Mao Zedong from 30 November 1947, and 15 March 1948. We could not react to them immediately because we were checking some information necessary for our answer. Now that the facts are verified, we can answer both letters. First. The answer to the letter of 30 November 1947. We are very grateful for the information from Comrade Mao Zedong. We agree with the assessment of the situation given by Comrade Mao Zedong. We have doubts only about one point in the letter, where it is said that “In the period of the final victory of the Chinese Revolution, following the example of the USSR and Yugoslavia, all political parties except the CCP should leave the political scene, which will significantly strengthen the Chinese Revolution.” We do not agree with this. We think that the various opposition parties in China which are representing the middle strata of the Chinese population and are opposing the Guomindang clique will exist for a long time. And the CCP will have to involve them in cooperation against the Chinese reactionary forces and imperialist powers, while keeping hegemony, i.e., the leading position, in its hands. It is possible that some representatives of these parties will have to be included into the Chinese people’s democratic government and the government itself has to be proclaimed a coalition government in order to widen the basis of this government among the population and to isolate imperialists and their Guomindang agents. It is necessary to keep in mind that the Chinese government in its policy will be a national revolutionary-democratic government, not a communist one, after the victory of the People’s Liberation Armies of China, at any rate in the period immediately after the victory, the length of which is difficult to define now. This means that nationalization of all land and abolition of private ownership of land, confiscation of the property of all industrial and trade bourgeoisie from petty to big, confiscation of property belonging not only to big landowners but to middle and small holders exploiting hired labor, will not be fulfilled for the present. These reforms have to wait for some time. It has to be said for your information that there are other parties in Yugoslavia besides the communists which form part of the People’s Front. Second. The answer to the letter from Comrade Mao Zedong from 15 March 1948. We are very grateful to Comrade Mao Zedong for the detailed information on military and political questions. We agree with all the conclusions given by Comrade Mao Zedong in this letter. We consider as absolutely correct Comrade Mao Zedong’s thoughts concerning the creation of a central government of China and including in it representatives of the liberal bourgeosie. With Communist greetings

Stalin
20 April 1948 "

Note how he talks of a coalition with the liberal bourgeoisie. This is called Popular Front policy, and is very much connected to stagism for obvious reasons.

Stalin also revised Marxism in another way, coming up with the idea of socialism in one country (often called SIOC on revleft). This is fairly self explanatory, he abandoned the idea that socialism had to be international.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm

So, 'socialism' in Russia, capitalism for everywhere else.

This plan failed because capitalism is very difficult to establish in backward countries, if it was easy the capitalists would have done it by themselves without the help of Stalinists.

Mao had just won a civil war against the capitalist KMT. The only reason he fought them was because the KMT massacred communists whenever they could.

The funny thing is, even though Mao also wanted China to be capitalist, Stalin had been backing the KMT up to when Mao won!

[human strike]

You mean execution squads?

No, I considered this, but I prefer suicide squads. Suicide in the sense of sacrifice in the sense Vaneigem discusses in Revolution of Everyday Life.

[daft punk]

I dunno what that means:blushing:

[The Intransigent Faction]

I don't like pure capitalism. I would allow enterprising to a limit where people cannot get too rich. Also people couldn't inherit money or any material which could give them economic benefits such as land or a house etc. I'm talking about half-socialistic- half-capitalistic society.

Most of the friends I talk politics with feel the same way, so I understand. John Stuart Mill, a liberal, called for similar reforms. Ask yourself though, how long can such limits last in a capitalist society? The rich have a vested interest in fighting back against those kind of reforms, and we've seen that struggle at every turn as workers fought tooth and nail for the reforms that we have. Capitalist society is structured in such a way that the rich seek to maximize their profit, and the government in which they have influence will not sustainably go to those lengths to limit this profit.

Also you're misunderstanding socialism. It's not simply reformed capitalism, but worker ownership of the means of production, as other here said, so simply abolishing inheritance is not "half-socialism".


I don't like collectivism because it restricts peoples freedom. From my opinion society should be very individualistic.

This begs the question of what you mean by "freedom". It's a very relative term. If you're talking about individual liberty, then know this: Marx spoke of communism as an "association where the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all". In short, you have the right to create and work as you will, as long as your doing so does not deny others the same opportunity. Capitalist rhetoricians claim that this is exactly what they aim for, but in reality in capitalism an increasingly smaller group of people control the productive forces and compel others to work for their personal profit.
Short version: Only communist society can allow the truly free exercising of individuality, because it is an alternative socioeconomic system in which the majority aren't denied individuality and the ability to create because they're too busy working on an assembly line for a capitalist.


I wouldn't call myself communist or capitalist and I hate fascism. I think I'm more like libertarianist mixed with leftist values.

American parlance treats the political spectrum as a line where you're either left-wing and for some Orwellian state, or right-wing and for deregulated capitalism. It's not quite this simple. You can definitely be left-wing and lean toward libertarianism rather than authoritarianism, as many others here will tell you.

P.S., Welcome!