Help with my political alignment.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I came here to learn more about politics and figure out what my political views are. I’ve seen people ask for help in figuring out their political alignment, and I don’t know if that’s considered annoying, but if you would like to help me, it’d be appreciated. I know that reading and looking at the forum is the best way to find out, but I’d like to try this too.
I’m not exactly sure where to start this, but I guess I’ll start with some obvious/basic stuff.
I, just like most, disagree with racism, sexism, and homophobia. I don’t like overbearing or totalitarian government. All of that is probably the consensus here. I’m no fan of organized religion, but don’t mind belief in Gods. That may be contradictory, I don’t think it is, but maybe I’m wrong. I think everyone should be equal, and no one should be oppressed. Again, this appears to be what most people here think, but I guess it shows my views for equality, and I suppose, authority?
I think the earth should be protected, although I’m not as passionate about it as I should. One issue I feel strongest about, is animal rights. I’m currently a vegetarian, and I’ll become a vegan in the future. I think animals should be allowed to live free, and not be oppressed by humans, and that animals and humans are equal. That’s not me trying to start an argument on animal rights, I’m just pointing out that that’s what I believe. This also seems like anti authoritarianism.
Those might not have anything to do with me possibly being an anarchist, or socialist, or communist, or what have you, but it might help.
I don’t know if I think there should be a moneyless society, but it makes sense. Although it also seems restricting. Sometimes money seems like the source of the worlds problems, like how some countries can’t even afford clean water. But I also wonder if a society without money would allow less options. Money would allow more options on how to live, what products you might want to use. Perhaps payment could be more fair.
I’ve considered myself an anti-capitalist for a while, but I recently began to wonder if there weren’t any bad economic or political systems, just bad people. Maybe if society got along, any system would work. Capitalism would be fair, or anarchy would work, (I don’t mean anarchy wouldn’t, but those are two common concerns with those two systems.)
I think people should have the right to a job you like. I might have some anti private property ideas, in the sense I don’t think people should “own” the earth.
I know that this won’t show exactly what I am, but it will, hopefully, give me a good idea. I think that political debates should be civil, and arguing/insulting, is counter-productive. Ask me questions if it will help.
Thanks for the help!

[daft punk]

Hi, I can have a go at some of these questions for you. Where to start though?

Moneyless society, let's start with that. You need to know that Marxists think it would take a couple of generations at least to get to that stage, probably longer. First you need an economy capable of easily producing everything everyone needs, and most of what they want, internationally. So you would need the poor countries brought up to the level of rich ones. You would need to have scrapped private ownership of the means of production, and implemented a democratically controlled planned economy.

You would evolved to moneyless society by making one thing free at a time. First, free healthcare and education. Next, free public transport and food. Then free housing, then free energy. Finally, luxuries may be on some kind of points of token system.

Some people on here seem to want to abolish money overnight, but I've no idea how they would expect it to work.

The socialist economy would be more efficient that a capitalist one, because money is a much a hindrance as a help - if you havent got it you cant do anything. The world's rich have $10 trillion under their mattresses doing nothing, as investment opportunities are so poor. They turned from manufacturing to finance to make easy money and a world cannot run on finance. People need things, food, houses, electricity, clean water.

Regarding the green thing, capitalism does not take it into account. If you are a car salesman or manufacturer, you are not deducting global warming from your profits. Only socialism can factor in this stuff and do it in a green way.

Practically, we could turn weapons manufacturing factories over to making wind turbines and solar panels. We can move from the car to the tram and bus. We can cut down on waste, duplication. We can make stuff designed to last and easy to repair. Scrap fashions, this week's must-have mobile phone and this seasons colours. Fuck all of that right off.

[Revolution starts with U]

If only the nobles had been proper Christians feudalism would have worked eh? If you pay attention you will quickly notice the ethics of its people really doesn't effect the efficacy of a social system. Shit I mean... haven't you ever heard of southern hospitality?

See daft on money. Ive minor disagreements but its good enough.

You count anti discrimination first so I assume that's important to you. Ask yourself why they exist not only in our heads but how they translate to macro reality. Are they a root or an effect? How best can they be dealt with?

[Kotze]

Your alignment is probably libertarian left (http://politicalcompass.org/test)/chaotic good (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b).

I suggest looking for texts about anarcho-syndicalism.

[Art Vandelay]

http://www.lucyparsonsproject.org/anarchism/berkman_abc_of_anarchism.html

This is a good start.

[human strike]

http://deoxy.org/rst.htm

[Firebrand]

It is important to decide whether you think that the situation is bad because people make it bad or that people do bad things because the situation drives them to do bad things. If you believe the latter then you can credibly be called a leftist, if not then you are most likely some kind of liberal

[The Idler]

Ask yourself the following questions
By what method will the revolution be achieved?
How should your organisation take internal decisions?
What will be the requirements for unity with other organisations?
What kind of program is needed (minimum, maximum, transitional, none)?
What are the prospects for global capitalism?
What requirements are there for supporting national liberation movements?
What was the Soviet Union and why was it dissolved?

[Brosip Tito]

You are some sort of progressive, but I have a few questions for you:

Oppressed class? Do you believe the working class is oppressed , and exploited by a minority rich, and therefore, as a physical majority population who produce all commodities, the workers' should run how things are done political and economically?

Reform or Revolution? ie Should the capitalist system be reformed to be made better, reformed away, or a revolution to abolish it?

Communism, or something else? Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, based on the idea "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Things are organized via the workers' councils, a democratic organ with the ability of the member workers to recall representatives.

If not Communism, what else will eliminate the system of capitalism, and actually work? As a Marxist, there is nothing else. As an anarchist, you would look into the systems of Syndicalism and mutualism. If you disagree with communism, skip the next question.

Workers' State or Immediate Communism? ie should the workers', in the course of revolution, take command of the state to prevent counter-revolution and foreign intervention as well as organize the economy? Or, should society transition directly into communism?

Since you are here to learn, and I'm a pushy Marxist asshole, I'd like to suggest a few reads by Marx and Engels:

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/)
Wage Labour and Capital (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marxists.org%2Farchive%2Fmarx %2Fworks%2F1847%2Fwage-labour%2Findex.htm&ei=sNSCT5n8OMPe0QH6g8TYBw&usg=AFQjCNGY_rFPnwcDkNybLP3eFaahsXgbCg&sig2=Cx3R9XUG2Sg2CldSrx62fw)
Critique of the Gotha Programme (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marxists.org%2Farchive%2Fmarx %2Fworks%2F1875%2Fgotha%2F&ei=zdSCT-yOIebs0gGOt93SBw&usg=AFQjCNGf8BSOM2MIH6AE9CI9GVWQK25lsQ&sig2=3y5XPLi-TOg-8yzKhN5k8w)
Socialism: Scientific and utopian (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marxists.org%2Farchive%2Fmarx %2Fworks%2F1880%2Fsoc-utop%2Findex.htm&ei=5dSCT6OZFInw0gHSxfmBCA&usg=AFQjCNHdl-HNKlnTfMgTKP_Yhdljt-jDCQ&sig2=Yz6DPgTiXDdZHzJvYqpFNQ)

To deter you from reformism, I suggest Reform or Revolution (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marxists.org%2Farchive%2Fluxe mburg%2F1900%2Freform-revolution%2Findex.htm&ei=fdSCT7CWI6Pj0QHUm_X5Bw&usg=AFQjCNFpU61S-XPL8Wznd29jss5Fh7LFZw&sig2=1NfCbFaXN0ptUrG3JLXzTg) by Rosa Luxemburg.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Thank you for asking!
1. Yes, I think for the most part, the lower class is opressed. Today in school, I began to think more anti capitalist thoughts, as we're "learning", (being given propaganda), about economic systems. I do think the rich are given the power to lead, through interest groups, and we have to suffer their crap. Economically, they control people in the third world, by giving them shitty working conditions. Overall, yes, the workers are opressed.


2. Capitalism should be gotten rid of. I like to think maybe one day, humans will get along, and capitalism, or any system, will work. I don't know if that will happen, but for now at least, it should be rid of.


3. That's partially why I'm asking. I was watching a video by RedNickD about communism today, and it seemed nice, but fairly complicated. How you would turn in vouchers for goods, based on how much time was put in, seemed alright, but still complicated. I don't know if I would want to live like that though. There are other forms I'm sure, that was Lenenist I think. As for anarchism, I read an essay sometimes about how an anarcho-communist society would run, and it's one of the few times I feel positive about where society could go. I read it again today with a little less enthusiasm. Sometimes I worry anarchism will be too primitive. I know that it's not anarcho-primitivism, but I like having my PS3, and going to see movies in theatres that aren't indie. I don't know how those would exist without corporations or big budgets.


4. Yes, I think workers should take control. I know that's the problem with most communist revolutions, that they want power and become dictators though. Maybe workers can establish a union that will democratically control the state after it's overthrown? But we need to do something about someone taking the power.


Thank you so much, and I'll be sure to look at the readings! I rented the Commie Manifesto before, but never got around to reading it.:)

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Thank you for asking!
1. The revolution would be acheived hopefully through peaceful means, but I doubt it would work that way. Then it would be direct action, think ALF or ELF type actions against the government. Then worst case scenario, warfare or violence. The second seems like the best, most realistic way.

2. Organization. I would assume democratically? Organization is just a political group, right? That might be a stupid question on my part.

3. I would hope there would be as much talking and cooperation as possible.

4. I had to look up what those are, and I didn't understand the defenition. Can you help me out on that.

5. I don't think there are many. One good example is shipping jobs overseas, cheap labor, poor conditions. Capitalism is overall not a system I agree with.

6. I think it would be based on their positions. People would have to decide for themselves, but there wouldn't be many movements that people would be against, I assume.

7. From what I understand, it was an attempt at communism. Either, it wasn't done properly and it was hijacked by a bunch of dictators, or that's who was running it from the start. It seems like it was going steady with Lenin, and then by the end it was completely screwed. They just pretended to be communist to get support.

Hopefully that helps, thank you!:cool:

[ckaihatsu]

How you would turn in vouchers for goods, based on how much time was put in, seemed alright, but still complicated.


This topic is being discussed at this thread:


What happens to money in a socialist society?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/happens-money-socialist-t170050/index.html








As long as there are enough liberated-laborers -- *volunteers*, even -- to run the machines to produce a per-item *surplus*, and enough of the same to distribute the stuff, then where's the @#$%^&* problem??! (I mean, that's the whole *point* and *premise* -- right???)

If there's a *lack* of a per-item surplus, *and* the people can't quite seem to work out how to administrate it equitably, then there's a political weakness there and market economics will re-emerge.








[T]here would be no *objective* need for any formal remuneration system as long as people *politically* agreed to make the world's productive capacity (industry) produce just more than the people of the world could possibly use and consume -- a surplus. Any items that could *not* be readily mass-produced to address mass demand would be outstanding political issues for the revolution, and could also be potential political weaknesses.





How you would turn in vouchers for goods, based on how much time was put in, seemed alright, but still complicated.


I'll also add that it's *inherently* problematic to have *any* system of exchanges in which material values are abstracted, as with commodity-labor, capital-based money, or even a post-capitalist voucher system:








The more stuff that is free, the less chance of corruption.





This makes sense, simply because people's attentions would be more focused on societal planning rather than on monetary valuations.


Finally, you're correct to point out that an exchange basis -- *any* basis -- *would* be complicated and unwieldy. It's because of the problem of quantifying social value (for labor) on a consensus (political) basis. There's another thread that discusses this topic comprehensively:


The doctor argument against communism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/doctor-argument-against-t147012/index.html?p=1973612