'Communism' the new reactionaryism?

[DinodudeEpic]

Disclaimer:I'm referring to actually exist 'communist' regimes. Not to actual communism.

Communism has apparently became the new reactionaryism. In former and current communist countries, there has been a feeling of preservation and restoration respectively of communist policies, in the sense of stalinism. And, there seems to be a feeling of social conservativism in those same movements.

What I'm saying is that Communism, defined as actually existing communism, has became the new far right-wing, that may soon dominate over the old capitalist right.

After all, China seems to be becoming a new world power, (Markets aside, it is the state-owned economics that defines those 'communist' societies.) and it seems that third-world 'leftist' dictatorships have a huge conservative tinge to them. (Even if they are not communist, but rather a 'socialist'-leaning nationalist movement like Baathism.)

Of course, we still have an active capitalist right that is now even more active then ever before.

Maybe, our politics is turning into a three-way spectrum of left vs. traditional right vs. the new right.

What do you think about the ideas that I'm passing around? I honestly don't know if they are stupid or are actually fringe brilliance.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Well, these states only call themselves socialist, they aren't actually socialist. So in actuality it is a semantics game. I can see what you mean but it boils down to definitions and creating new situations for the proletariat to overcome.

[DinodudeEpic]

Notice the quotations and the disclaimer. I already know that.

I am referring that a whole new system being developed. A system of economic bureaucracy. The new thing to replace capitalism, of course, in the long run

[CommieCoss]

If you're referring to the bureaucratic type "socialist" nations, then yeah. They, of course, aren't really socialist by marxist definition, so there isn't much point in calling them that. I'm not sure these types of systems are really new either, as bureaucracies have kinda always existed in one form or another and have always supported the ruling class. It's still pretty much left vs. right

[l'Enfermé]

Stalinists became strict reactionaries when they adopted the reactionary-utopian theory of Socialism in One Country. This isn't something new.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

china doesnt represent "reactionaryism" nearly to the same extent that the american empire has and does. china doesnt make it its duty to suppress socialist and anti capitalist movements everywhere. they dont topple regimes in the name of capital and install dicatorships all over the place. and what third world "leftist" dictatorships are these?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Disclaimer:I'm referring to actually exist 'communist' regimes. Not to actual communism.

Communism has apparently became the new reactionaryism. In former and current communist countries, there has been a feeling of preservation and restoration respectively of communist policies, in the sense of stalinism. And, there seems to be a feeling of social conservativism in those same movements.

What I'm saying is that Communism, defined as actually existing communism, has became the new far right-wing, that may soon dominate over the old capitalist right.

After all, China seems to be becoming a new world power, (Markets aside, it is the state-owned economics that defines those 'communist' societies.) and it seems that third-world 'leftist' dictatorships have a huge conservative tinge to them. (Even if they are not communist, but rather a 'socialist'-leaning nationalist movement like Baathism.)

Of course, we still have an active capitalist right that is now even more active then ever before.

Maybe, our politics is turning into a three-way spectrum of left vs. traditional right vs. the new right.

What do you think about the ideas that I'm passing around? I honestly don't know if they are stupid or are actually fringe brilliance.

I think there's something you have here, but I think I see it much differently than you. I think much of the role of these political tendencies or parties depends on regional politics. So in Eastern Europe and the USSR, the CPs and Communist politicians of the old regimes certainly were a conservative force: in some places championing the new neo-liberal order, in other places just using their political position to become "outright-capitalists" and retain their elite positions.

With economic problems and problems caused by the switch from (what I believe was state-capitalism) "communism" to neo-liberal capitalism there has also been a new role for the communist parties as sort of conservative defender against the rapid rate of change. This is reflected in growing nostalgia in the former eastern-block for the USSR as disillusionment with the new order has grown. So in the former East Germany there have been lots of polls showing people expressing the idea that life was better then. In Russia there has been a kind of USSR-nostalgia from above with a desire to save the nationalist aspects of the USSR without the welfare aspects. So nostalgia for the USSR and even the beginnings of a re-legitimization of Stalin as a "national hero" has a nationalist and imperialist angle of a desire for a return to a powerful Russian Empire.

China is interesting and even the Economist recently had a cover-story about China's State-Capitalism and how in many ways it's superior to neoliberal capitalism because it allows for longer-term planning of the economy and so there is definitely a section of world-wide capitalism that's contemplating some kind of way out of the economic crisis through either a return to a kind of Keynsianism or more state-dominated capitalist planning - at least to attempt to get through the recovery.

In fact the kinds of austerity and attacks on workers wages and living standards that the global capitalist class wants and requires right now may make state-capitalism appealing because they want to restructure from above while getting rid of resistance from below (think EU and Greece where national control of the economy has basically been removed from the government so that even if people cause political change, the economic policies would be untouchable (assuming political change, not full revolution).

So to speculate: a kind of new mutant post-USSR USSR-style "communism" might emerge - a new state-capitalism created only from above without even the initial worker's revolution to have to deal with. It would be a "communism" that doesn't even pretend to represent the desires or interests of the working class but a "communism" designed explicitly to save communism. What's the saying: first time tragedy, second time farce.

[Jimmie Higgins]

china doesnt represent "reactionaryism" nearly to the same extent that the american empire has and does. china doesnt make it its duty to suppress socialist and anti capitalist movements everywhere. they dont topple regimes in the name of capital and install dicatorships all over the place. and what third world "leftist" dictatorships are these?True and the same was true of post WWII USSR which was less aggressive than US imperialism, but still part of the game none-the-less.

China simply couldn't be as belligerent as the US at this point nor could the USSR after the destruction of WWII. But it has nothing to do with the specifics of the systems, it's just what the balance of forces are and the US completely outguns China. But if things continue as they are I'm pretty convinced the US and China will have increasing confrontations in the near-future (my money's on proxy-wars in Africa). US control and hegemony holds back China - conversely to maintain it's hegemony the US needs to contain China - it's a scary situation for the world potentially.

[Per Levy]

china doesnt make it its duty to suppress socialist and anti capitalist movements everywhere.

true, they just opress socialists and anti-capitalists at home and support goverments all over the world that do the same.


they dont topple regimes in the name of capital and install dicatorships all over the place.

true, they just work with dictatorships in the name of capital in order to make the chinese capitlaist class stronger.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

liberal capitalism is still the main reactionary force in the world for the foreseeable future especially considering imperialism

[Jimmie Higgins]

liberal capitalism is still the main reactionary force in the world for the foreseeable future especially considering imperialismI guess it depends on how someone views China. I mean my view is that yes US imperialism is the bigger threat, but so was the British Empire at the time of WWI, but it doesn't mean that German capitalism would have been a better world-hegemon from a working class perspective despite there being maybe better reforms and rights for German workers.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm sorry OP, what you seem to be saying is that industrialised state capitalism (a model that has been fairly often put into practice since World War One if not before, you can see the beginnings of it in Germany in the 1880s for instance) is a new way of organising capitalism that somehow makes it not capitalism. And that states, no matter what their 'ideology', tend towards oppression and social conservatism.

No, it's just re-organising capitalism. With a different flag. In an oppressive state.

Exactly what has been happening for the past 120 years or so, and exactly what has been fought against by socialists for the same period. Shockingly, many socialists were opposed to Stalinism too... because we don't see brutal state-capitalist dictatorships as a step towards communism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

op owns and shows how brainwashed "deformed worker state" "communists" are by western propaganda about communism

because dude refers to a gulf between "actual communist regimes" and "Real Communism"

[black magick hustla]

idk op is right in a way. people that want the same shit as the ussr are objectively conservative/reactionary people. artifacts of the old world. including ancient warrior trots that go on about deformed workers' states or some bullshit which is actually the same as being a brezhnevite except u make some vague statements about political revolution or somethin

[Franz Fanonipants]

idk op is right in a way. people that want the same shit as the ussr are objectively conservative/reactionary people. artifacts of the old world. including ancient warrior trots that go on about deformed workers' states or some bullshit which is actually the same as being a brezhnevite except u make some vague statements about political revolution or somethin

its fair but op did not elucidate

i mean there are dudes on this v. forum who are too busy playing soviet larp to accomplish anything so i don't disagree

[Rafiq]

A Communist could argue that the restoration of Liberalism was reactionary and that their goal is recovering the progress.

"Reactionaryism"? Moron...

Anyway, if you want my take on it, they are Bourgeois with some reactionary views (Homophobia).

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

Btw, "actual communism", "real communism", etc. Do not exist.

Not for Marxists, anyway.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[DinodudeEpic]

By 'actual communism', I mean the communist movement that isn't Stalinist.

And, note that I'm talking about how third world dictatorships that claim to be 'socialist' actually end up becoming the new conservative establishment.

Liberal capitalism is actually in the center of the political spectrum, with 'capitalist right' referring to the 'right-wing populist' movement. (That is anti-liberal in everything but economics.)

In total, I'm just passing an idea that capitalism is falling to not socialism, but rather to a new, or actually old, economic system of tyranny derived from government controlled economics. (As practiced in the Soviet Union.)

And, that this new system is going to become, overtime, the replacement for capitalism. Of course, markets would still continue on, but instead end up being controlled by the government. Capital becomes subordinate to an outside force.

And, it is apparent that the ruling elite of most third world "socialist" dictatorships are actually party-members of the ruling party.

Of course, these are predictions. The turn of events can also be in the favor of capitalism or socialism. It is just that communism, as a popular movement, has been transformed from a workers' liberation movement to a new justification for a conservative elitist oligarchy.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

liberal capitalism means Western style liberal democracies not social democracy/third way politics or whatever

by the way "liberal socialist" is literally a contradiction in terms

[Rafiq]

By 'actual communism', I mean the communist movement that isn't Stalinist.

go on..


And, note that I'm talking about how third world dictatorships that claim to be 'socialist' actually end up becoming the new conservative establishment.


Third world dictatorships of what? Dictators do not exist. Dictatorships of the petty bourgeoisie, perhaps..

We can call any country that calls itself such as socialist. Such is how they are commonly referred, and this does little to no damage to Socialism as a (non) existent movement.

and "Conservative establishment" doesn't exist. In the case of "Third world countries", there was no morphing into a "Conservative establishment". Each and every one of those countries never abolished the capitalist mode of production or had a proletarian revolution.


Liberal capitalism is actually in the center of the political spectrum, with 'capitalist right' referring to the 'right-wing populist' movement. (That is anti-liberal in everything but economics.)


Fucking ludicrious. "Capitalism" is a system, not an ideology.

As for the "Political spectrum", fuck it, that is useless. Though if we must use it, all forms of Liberalism today are inherently Right Wing, and the rest of the "left" is left of capital (with some exceptions). This is the bourgeois political spectrum, of which real revolutionaries have no place.


In total, I'm just passing an idea that capitalism is falling to not socialism, but rather to a new, or actually old, economic system of tyranny derived from government controlled economics. (As practiced in the Soviet Union.)


And in total, the idea you are passing is completely fucking ridiculous. You still adhere to this bullshit Liberalist rhetoric of "Tyranny". There was no tyranny in the Soviet Union more than any other state. Because "Tyranny" has a special place in Bourgeois vocabulary, which is in direct conflict with revolutionary concepts such as "Emancipation".

"Government controlled economics" is an Idealist and shit concept which does not, has not ever existed. No one can "Control economics". All governments are agents of a class, so "Government" as an external interest does not exist and can not exist by nature.


And, that this new system is going to become, overtime, the replacement for capitalism. Of course, markets would still continue on, but instead end up being controlled by the government. Capital becomes subordinate to an outside force.


And this prediction will be wrong, in the end. While I agree capitalism will become "Meaner", like in China, this doesn't contradict the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, on the contrary, it is a new and more efficient form of the same bourgeoisie to retain class power, and retain the capitalist mode of production.


And, it is apparent that the ruling elite of most third world "socialist" dictatorships are actually party-members of the ruling party.


Yes, yes, we all know you're a Liberalist. "Ruling elite", give me a fucking break.


Of course, these are predictions.

Which can only be predicted via the Bourgeois Liberalist method.


The turn of events can also be in the favor of capitalism or socialism.

Yes, you don't know what capitalism is, congrats.


It is just that communism, as a popular movement, has been transformed from a workers' liberation movement to a new justification for a conservative elitist oligarchy.

Not necessarily, as over time it became social democratic.

I like your usage though. "Conservative elitist oligarchy" is in place of "Bourgeois dictatorship". Just shows what a Liberal scum you are.

[Rafiq]

liberal capitalism means Western style liberal democracies not social democracy/third way politics or whatever

by the way "liberal socialist" is literally a contradiction in terms

He's just a confused young child who is only a socialist because he deems it as a bright and shiny object, a nice and cool Idea, sizzle.

[DinodudeEpic]

"Third world dictatorships of what? Dictators do not exist. Dictatorships of the petty bourgeoisie, perhaps.. "

Dictatorships of the nomenklatura. To fit with your so holy and infallible Marxist views.

"We can call any country that calls itself such as socialist. Such is how they are commonly referred, and this does little to no damage to Socialism as a (non) existent movement."

I never referred to them as socialism. I referred to them as a whole different economic system, in which property is collectively owned by the elite (nomenklatura) as a whole.

"and "Conservative establishment" doesn't exist. In the case of "Third world countries", there was no morphing into a "Conservative establishment". Each and every one of those countries never abolished the capitalist mode of production or had a proletarian revolution."

It means the dominant political and economic elite in INFORMAL terms. 'Ruling class' if you will it to be called that. "Communist" regimes also tend to have some conservative views in terms of social issues and have social stratification.



"Fucking ludicrious. "Capitalism" is a system, not an ideology."

Systems can be placed onto a spectrum. Capitalism is closer to socialism then Feudalism.

"As for the "Political spectrum", fuck it, that is useless. Though if we must use it, all forms of Liberalism today are inherently Right Wing, and the rest of the "left" is left of capital (with some exceptions). This is the bourgeois political spectrum, of which real revolutionaries have no place."

Nope. We still have conservatives. Capitalist liberals are centrists. (Both social and market liberals.)



"And in total, the idea you are passing is completely fucking ridiculous. You still adhere to this bullshit Liberalist rhetoric of "Tyranny". There was no tyranny in the Soviet Union more than any other state. Because "Tyranny" has a special place in Bourgeois vocabulary, which is in direct conflict with revolutionary concepts such as "Emancipation". "

Emancipation is freedom from Tyranny. The hypocrisy of capitalist liberals is not applicable to me. Since, I oppose capitalist AND planned economies. Also, there is no 'Bourgeois vocabulary'. Your economic reductionism is just plainly stupid in my opinion.

""Government controlled economics" is an Idealist and shit concept which does not, has not ever existed. No one can "Control economics". All governments are agents of a class, so "Government" as an external interest does not exist and can not exist by nature. "

They did and do exist, and I do not believe in your idea of economic reductionism. Sorry, but if I reject your dogmatic central tenets, then I can't agree with you on that.



"And this prediction will be wrong, in the end. While I agree capitalism will become "Meaner", like in China, this doesn't contradict the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, on the contrary, it is a new and more efficient form of the same bourgeoisie to retain class power, and retain the capitalist mode of production. "

It is not a transition from capitalism to socialism. It is a transition from capitalism to a different system in your terms.



"Yes, yes, we all know you're a Liberalist. "Ruling elite", give me a fucking break. "

I am a liberal. OK, so try to think of something better to say then pure name-calling. Marxism basically is all about 'Ruling classes'. Sorry that I don't use your fucking Marxist language.

"Which can only be predicted via the Bourgeois Liberalist method."

Give me proof that it's Bourgeois! Give me proof that Liberalism is wrong! You just simply dismiss my ideas because they reject YOUR dogma. Discuss ideas, not dismiss them as childish. Even though, this whole idea is just a random thought that I had, and not a well-polished theory. I can think of tons of other holes in it without resorting Marxist dogma and namecalling.



"Yes, you don't know what capitalism is, congrats."

I was talking about THREE competing economic systems. Planned, Socialist, and Capitalist economics. I know what capitalism is.



"Not necessarily, as over time it became social democratic."

Social Democrats are not homophobes seeking an oligarchy with fully state-controlled economics like Stalinists.

"I like your usage though. "Conservative elitist oligarchy" is in place of "Bourgeois dictatorship". Just shows what a Liberal scum you are."

We know you are a Marxist! Name-calling others 'bourgeois' is just plainly showing that you lack any compelling reality-based arguments. Since I self-identify as a Liberal Socialist, your name-calling has no effect on my arguments. You can't reveal what is obvious. Also, Marx was a liberal.

"He's just a confused young child who is only a socialist because he deems it as a bright and shiny object, a nice and cool Idea, sizzle."

This quote came from the person who resorts to name-calling and dogmas to argue his points. And, he/she couldn't even comprehend the idea of not using a capital 'I' in the a word in the middle of a sentence. And finally, I am a socialist because it is more beneficial to humanity, liberty, and equality. Not because it was new. (Mutualism is dirt old, for goodness sakes. It's even older then Marxism. There were socialists before your precious Marx, who were not commune loving utopians.)

In total, I was just making up a random idea to explain a certain phenomena, hoping for intelligent critique. Yet, all I get is an elaborate version of 'Marx said this! You dumb bourgeois liberal scum! Communism is not that! You don't know what socialism is!'

Even though, my past posts reveal that I distaste the association of capitalism with free markets, and I advocated revolutionary socialism since my initial membership. The difference is not in the markets. But, rather on who owns the PROPERTY. Workers, capitalists, or the Party. You pick your choice. You picked the party. (Corporatism is still capitalism.)

An actual proper debate is much needed. Since, any thread with the both of us in it turns into a giant clash of words between the both of us.

[Blake's Baby]

...
I was talking about THREE competing economic systems. Planned, Socialist, and Capitalist economics. I know what capitalism is...

I don't undserstand what you think these three 'economic systems' are.

There is no 'socialist economic system'. Socialism is the destruction of economics. Under socialism 'economy' will have no meaning.

Why do you think a 'planned' economy is not a capitalist economy?

I'm mystified.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I know what capitalism is.

evidently not


Also, Marx was a liberal.

lol
no. he was not.

[o well this is ok I guess]

i mean there are dudes on this v. forum who are too busy playing soviet larp to accomplish anything so i don't disagree Can we do this
I mean can we skip all illusions and just straight up roleplay

[o well this is ok I guess]

by the way "liberal socialist" is literally a contradiction in terms I dunno C.B. Macpherson came pretty close to formulating it as a coherent ideology
sorta

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

even market socialism is contrary to fundamental liberal ideas.

[Blake's Baby]

And socialist ideas.

[DinodudeEpic]

"I don't undserstand what you think these three 'economic systems' are.

There is no 'socialist economic system'. Socialism is the destruction of economics. Under socialism 'economy' will have no meaning.

Why do you think a 'planned' economy is not a capitalist economy?

I'm mystified."

I was talking about the economic social relations. And, I disagree with you on the meaning of socialism. (Which is a highly contested word.)

A planned economy is one in which a ruling elite control the economy collectively through the state and/or political party. The collectivist aspect has to be emphasized.

Anyways, this is all just semantics. And, I got the basic idea out of the 'Bureaucratic Collectivist' theories that some Trotskyists had been passing around.

"evidently not"

Proof? This is a subjective claim that puts into the question the meaning of capitalism. Which is pretty much heavily debated. You're just asserting that I don't the definition out of your dogma. I just simply look at the fundamentals of the current capitalist system and compare it to past systems to logically determine the meaning of capitalism.

"lol
no. he was not. "

Actually, Karl Marx was a radical liberal BEFORE he thought of his communist ideas. Of course, ignorance reigns supreme in those who assume.

" by the way "liberal socialist" is literally a contradiction in terms "

No. Liberalism means "political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics" It pretty much means free markets, individualism, a focus on liberty, and political democracy. Socialism is characterized by the belief that the laborer should be rewarded the full fruits of his labor through the Labor Theory of Value, practically through cooperatives. Liberal Socialism is the combination of the above. Non-anarchist examples are G. D. H. Cole and Oszkar Jarzi, who have similar ideas to me, who both self-identify as Liberal Socialists.

"even market socialism is contrary to fundamental liberal ideas."

No, it is based on the right for the individual worker to own his rightful property. And, it prioritizes Liberty as a political goal.

"And socialist ideas."

No, I based of my ideas of the Labor Theory of Value and the mutualist ideas of Proudhon. (Who was a socialist before Marx was.) Workers control is foundationally socialist.


Lastly, this is going way too off-topic. After all, this is about Stalinist regimes, NOT communism. If I just called it 'Stalinism', you, two of you, would probably not be as hostile as you are now.

[danyboy27]

Notice the quotations and the disclaimer. I already know that.

I am referring that a whole new system being developed. A system of economic bureaucracy. The new thing to replace capitalism, of course, in the long run


It dosnt replace capitalism but enforce it.
And beside, bucreaucracy is something that is older than the freaking roman empire, its hardly socialist.

[DinodudeEpic]

It dosnt replace capitalism but enforce it.
And beside, bucreaucracy is something that is older than the freaking roman empire, its hardly socialist.

I never said it was socialist!

For goodness sakes! Anyone who read my previous posts should know that I don't believe that Socialism equals planned economics.

I meant bureaucracy becoming the MAIN method of economic organization. And, let's not forget the the collectivist part of the Soviet system.

[danyboy27]

I never said it was socialist!

For goodness sakes! Anyone who read my previous posts should know that I don't believe that Socialism equals planned economics.

I meant bureaucracy becoming the MAIN method of economic organization. And, let's not forget the the collectivist part of the Soviet system.

Bureaucracy or management is necessary to organize any sort of economical system. THere are method or management that are more fair than other like direct democracy over dictatorship for exemple but regardless, you need it.

if what you meant is a direct central control of the mean of production by one single bureaucracy then i guess there are no valid exemple around past or present that could demonstrate that such things ever existed.
The soviet union itself was nothing more than a bunch of competing bureaucratic structures working against eachother to get the ressources and manpower they wanted for their own little projects.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No. Liberalism means "political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics" It pretty much means free markets, individualism, a focus on liberty, and political democracy.

namely free trade. historically speaking. whigs, ricardo, toqueville and so on. hardly a democratic movement.

libertarian socialism i think is what youre trying to defend here and it has very little in common with liberalism.

[hatzel]

libertarian socialism i think is what youre trying to defend here and it has very little in common with liberalism.

Nah he pretty much just means some kind of weird twist on mutualism and Ricardian socialism and something I dunno. I forget the exact details, but they were explained to us once a little while ago...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

well gdh cole was a libertarian socialist and not a liberal by any means. nor was marx, to be clear. before he became a socialist he hardly gave a crap about economics as far as i know.

[DinodudeEpic]

"well gdh cole was a libertarian socialist and not a liberal by any means. nor was marx, to be clear. before he became a socialist he hardly gave a crap about economics as far as i know."

I said that he had 'similar ideas'. Which means that his ideas were roughly alike to mine. He did advocate for cooperatives with no state intervention, without being an anarchist.

Marx was a liberal BEFORE he was a socialist/communist. He wrote for the liberal 'The Rhenish Gazette' before he came into contact with the socialist Moses Hess. Of course, the majority of the early socialist movement were radical liberals before becoming socialists. So, Marx was not a liberal for the VAST majority of his career. The point was to jokingly make fun of Rafiq's hatred for liberalism, even though it is not contradictory to socialism. Not to put Marx on my side, which is pointless as I am not a Marxist.

Note that I prefer free trade, limited government, and free markets REGARDLESS of what Whigs thought of democracy. That makes me a liberal. I prefer worker's control of the means of production. That makes me a socialist. Note that Liberalism is a BROAD category that ranges from Adam Smith to the semi-socialist John Stuart Mill to the welfarist Franklin Roosevelt.

Liberal Socialism is not Liberal Capitalism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

liberalism in its historical sense and academically means free markets and free trade like you said. what americans call classical liberalism. it is diametrically opposed to the communist cause of the emancipation of labor. apart from that there is neoliberalism, which is also obviously capitalist. keynesianism and welfarism are not liberal. i outright reject the revisionist way in which the term liberalism has been redefined in the english speaking world. i get that language is a fluid thing that changes and so on. but this is historical revisionism plain and simple that tries to draw a natural ideological progression from xixth century liberalism to things like labour and social democracy. your definition of liberalism is completely unmaterialistic and ahistorical. stop reading wikipedia or whatever youre reading and read some history books.

[DinodudeEpic]

liberalism in its historical sense and academically means free markets and free trade like you said. what americans call classical liberalism. it is diametrically opposed to the communist cause of the emancipation of labor. apart from that there is neoliberalism, which is also obviously capitalist. keynesianism and welfarism are not liberal. i outright reject the revisionist way in which the term liberalism has been redefined in the english speaking world. i get that language is a fluid thing that changes and so on. but this is historical revisionism plain and simple that tries to draw a natural ideological progression from xixth century liberalism to things like labour and social democracy. your definition of liberalism is completely unmaterialistic and ahistorical. stop reading wikipedia or whatever youre reading and read some history books.

I know that, considering that I referenced Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill before referencing FDR. However, the original definition of liberalism still fits the spot. I advocate free markets and free trade, and I don't believe that they are against the emancipation of labor. Even then, I was referencing the liberal movement, not the actual ideology. I already laid out the foundations of liberalism as 'Free markets, individualism, free trade, and limited government.'

I fulfilled all of that criteria.

At the same time, I fulfill the criteria of being a socialist. 'Workers self-management, egalitarianism, and workers ownership.'


So thus, I am a 'Liberal Socialist'.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i mean basically you're just a socialist, non-marxist, non-scientific (for whatever that means)

e: which categorically makes a non-revolutionary leftist

[Ocean Seal]

What I'm saying is that Communism, defined as actually existing communism, has became the new far right-wing, that may soon dominate over the old capitalist right.
Lets see your examples...


After all, China seems to be becoming a new world power, (Markets aside, it is the state-owned economics that defines those 'communist' societies.) and it seems that third-world 'leftist' dictatorships have a huge conservative tinge to them. (Even if they are not communist, but rather a 'socialist'-leaning nationalist movement like Baathism.)

Yes, markets aside, China is like Maoist China or the revisionist (56-89, I'm using the term here not to play lip service, but to denote an era) SU. However, markets aside West Germany was kind of like East Germany. Poverty and infrastructure aside Africa is kind of like the US.



Of course, we still have an active capitalist right that is now even more active then ever before.

Unfortunately.


Maybe, our politics is turning into a three-way spectrum of left vs. traditional right vs. the new right.

I think you meant traditional left. But no, no they haven't. It will always be the ruling class against the working class regardless of how the ruling class wishes to represent itself.


What do you think about the ideas that I'm passing around? I honestly don't know if they are stupid or are actually fringe brilliance.
They don't make much sense to me.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I know that, considering that I referenced Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill before referencing FDR. However, the original definition of liberalism still fits the spot. I advocate free markets and free trade, and I don't believe that they are against the emancipation of labor. Even then, I was referencing the liberal movement, not the actual ideology. I already laid out the foundations of liberalism as 'Free markets, individualism, free trade, and limited government.'

I fulfilled all of that criteria.

At the same time, I fulfill the criteria of being a socialist. 'Workers self-management, egalitarianism, and workers ownership.'


So thus, I am a 'Liberal Socialist'.

yes, the liberal movement. liberalism is defined more by the liberal movement, namely whigs, and less by liberal theory, which is vague and means whatever people want it to mean.

to be perfectly honest i have no clue what youre advocating. ghd cole is certainly not it since he was not a liberal. i am also somewhat familiar with marx's early philosophical writings and they are also not liberal. but if youre gonna remove capitalism from the equation, why even call yourself a liberal? to confuse people? if labor is not commodified, what free market are we talking about anyway?

[DinodudeEpic]

yes, the liberal movement. liberalism is defined more by the liberal movement, namely whigs, and less by liberal theory, which is vague and means whatever people want it to mean.

to be perfectly honest i have no clue what youre advocating. ghd cole is certainly not it since he was not a liberal. i am also somewhat familiar with marx's early philosophical writings and they are also not liberal. but if youre gonna remove capitalism from the equation, why even call yourself a liberal? to confuse people? if labor is not commodified, what free market are we talking about anyway?

A free market in which goods and services are freely exchanged for money.

And, I am a liberal due to advocating free markets, limited government, and free trade. Liberalism DOES NOT equal capitalism. It merely is free markets, free trade, limited government, and individualism. Liberalism does not equal with Whigism. Liberal, once again, is a broad and unmaterialistic idea. The only common unifying factor is individualism, free markets, an emphasis on liberty, and support for free trade.

As for G.H.D Cole, I said he was Similar, not the same, to my ideas. There is a difference between similar and same.

Once again, this has went far too off-topic. If you want to discuss the matter, please ask me through a private message.

[DinodudeEpic]

I am sorry for the double post, but I think it would be rude to not answer a post that I ignored.


i mean basically you're just a socialist, non-marxist, non-scientific (for whatever that means)

e: which categorically makes a non-revolutionary leftist

What about Anarcho-Syndicalists? They aren't Marxists, and they don't use the word 'Scientific' to discuss their ideas. Nor do the Anarcho-Communists.

Yet, they make a sizable portion of the non-restricted Revleft community.


As for this thread, I would like to say that it has been pretty much hijacked, and the discussion was moved away from the conservatism of ceartin Marxist-Leninist "communists", in quotation marks, to another debate between me and Rafiq. Apparently, I have no right to post without him posting a reply that focuses on my ideas on Liberal Socialism and not the actual topic in question, In total, this post pretty much announces that the thread is dead in my opinion.

To Rafiq: Debate with me and my basic ideas in a thread that is specifically made for such a debate. I am tired of constantly rebutting your posts in random threads. Not to say that I won't debate with you anymore, but rather that we should keep our disagreements on our fundamental ideologies away from random OI threads. Yes, I will reference my basic ideas as much as you would yours', but I want to prevent more threads from turning into a massive debate between you and me.