G'day from Downunder!

[LeftLibertarian]

So I'm LeftLibertarian from Sydney Australia.

When it comes to politics I am constantly questioning where i stand, however I've always had an underlying belief of equality and anti-authoritarianism. Whilst I take a lot of influence from Marx, i wouldn't strictly call myself a Marxist, hell not even sure what to call myself, I range somewhere between an Anarcho-Communist, Impossiblist, Idealist, Constructivist, Social Democrat, Democratic Socialist as well as a critic of Rationalisation (of which capitalism is the ultimate form of, thanks Weber).

I'm not amazingly radical, and believe we should work within the system and allow capitalism to peak before creating revolution (which in my opinion should be formed through social realisation and pressure as opposed to violent uprising).

I'm also possibly different to the average Marxist in that I don't believe the working class must overthrown the bourgeoisie but rather a push for the two to meet in the middle (hence my Democratic Socialist streak i suppose). Perhaps I'm biased because I would probably fit within the bourgeoisie being relatively upper-middle class.

Anyway, Hello. Feel free to try and pick apart my beliefs. Half the reason I'm here is to challenge myself into either defending my beliefs or change them to something i can defend.

[Marxaveli]

Welcome to the board^^

I am extremely radical, even by Marxist standards - because capitalism has become so deeply entrenched in the cultural fabric of society to the point that it is almost a religion. Unfortunately, it is scientifically impossible for the working class and the bourgeois to reconcile their interests - because they are fundamentally diametric opposites, which is why Marxists as well as our Anarchists friends do not support Social Democracy, or reform of any kind. Reform within the capitalist system is fine to create better conditions for workers, minorities, and such, but it should never be viewed as the ultimate solution to capitalism and its ills. Exploitation of labor, alienation, commodity fetishism, and reactionary social divisions of labor like racism, nationalism, and chauvinism cannot be reformed out of capitalism.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

So I'm LeftLibertarian from Sydney Australia.

Another comrade from the south! Welcome to Revleft! :lol:




I'm not amazingly radical, and believe we should work within the system and allow capitalism to peak before creating revolution (which in my opinion should be formed through social realisation and pressure as opposed to violent uprising).

Don't mean to sound rude about your first post, but I do not believe that this is actually possible. Would you be able to describe what exactly 'working within the system' means to you, and how

Are you sure it's a reasonable idea for the Proletariat to 'work within the system' alongside a minority who's sole want is to keep on top through exploitation and preservation of that very system?


I'm also possibly different to the average Marxist in that I don't believe the working class must overthrown the bourgeoisie but rather a push for the two to meet in the middle (hence my Democratic Socialist streak i suppose). Perhaps I'm biased because I would probably fit within the bourgeoisie being relatively upper-middle class.

Again, I don't wish to give aggression, but this seems fairly unrealistic given current conditions. A bourgeois exists because he exploits - and makes a profit - from the proletariat's labour. Why on earth would a member of the bourgeoisie, engaged in constant competition for market monopoly with other bourgeois, even think about helping the folks that he stabs in the back every day of the week to keep rich?

The bourgeois class and proletariat class are inherently antagonistic. There is no possible way to consolidate an 'alliance' with people who will order the genocide of millions, destroy rights movements and systematically crush any form of political resistance to them in the interests of profit.

[LeftLibertarian]

Welcome to the board^^

which is why Marxists as well as our Anarchists friends do not support Social Democracy, or reform of any kind. Reform within the capitalist system is fine to create better conditions for workers, minorities, and such, but it should never be viewed as the ultimate solution to capitalism and its ills.

I would definitely agree with that sentiment. Social Democracy is the better of evils within the modern political realm, it is a totally short-term band-aid for an inherently corrupt system. However I think the Left should at least attempt to support Social Democratic parties (considering it is relatively mainstream, although sadly becoming pushed to the side by conservatives, which surely you must agree is worse). Once society can tolerate social democracy, we can transition to push towards Democratic socialism (which is slowly becoming a bigger proportion of the economy), then of course we continue to push until anarcho-communism can exist.





Don't mean to sound rude about your first post, but I do not believe that this is actually possible. Would you be able to describe what exactly 'working within the system' means to you, and how

Are you sure it's a reasonable idea for the Proletariat to 'work within the system' alongside a minority who's sole want is to keep on top through exploitation and preservation of that very system?

I mostly mean an issue i often see is hardcore anarchists and marxists reject democracy and democratic participation on principle that is a bourgeoisie form of government. Maybe some see it as a noble, but i see as allowing the bourgeoisie to continue to maintain their exploitative ways without having people to call them on it. Anti-capitalism (or rather post-capitalism) will never become a revolutionary force within society if people don't vocalise and legitimise its existence.




Again, I don't wish to give aggression, but this seems fairly unrealistic given current conditions. A bourgeois exists because he exploits - and makes a profit - from the proletariat's labour. Why on earth would a member of the bourgeoisie, engaged in constant competition for market monopoly with other bourgeois, even think about helping the folks that he stabs in the back every day of the week to keep rich?

The bourgeois class and proletariat class are inherently antagonistic. There is no possible way to consolidate an 'alliance' with people who will order the genocide of millions, destroy rights movements and systematically crush any form of political resistance to them in the interests of profit.

I guess for one I don't agree that the bourgeoisie and proletariat are inherently antagonistic. I believe they are forced into competition because of the limited resources in the world and the greed of the minority. For the most people I don't believe people are born bad, or greedy or exploitative, we are introduced to these ideas by society. If people began to question the greed mantra and society was re-educated to reject those concepts those from lower and upper socio-economic classes could potentially aim for the same thing. Don't forget that Marx was not exactly poor, and Engels was very well off. Hell, anyone on this site has a computer and is relatively wealthy in the world. Being born wealthy does not mean you have to be exploitative in life. Those already part of the exploitative class are unsalvageable for the most part, their children are not.

[Marxaveli]

I would definitely agree with that sentiment. Social Democracy is the better of evils within the modern political realm, it is a totally short-term band-aid for an inherently corrupt system. However I think the Left should at least attempt to support Social Democratic parties (considering it is relatively mainstream, although sadly becoming pushed to the side by conservatives, which surely you must agree is worse). Once society can tolerate social democracy, we can transition to push towards Democratic socialism (which is slowly becoming a bigger proportion of the economy), then of course we continue to push until anarcho-communism can exist.

Lesser evilisms are never a good thing. I don't support any evils, be they lesser or greater ones. If I did, I would be happy voting in bourgeois elections and celebrating things like Obama's re-election victory.

Going from capitalism to socialism requires revolution. The reason Marxists reject reform is because most gains that come out of it are cosmetic at best, and they are not permanent either. Most of the time, reform is simply concessions made by the ruling class to keep the system intact. Private capital is what dictates policy, not the reverse. At the end of the day, social democracy simply wants to put a human face on capitalism, which is futile, and it is just as reactionary as conservatism in that regard. Reform may result in small short term gains for the working class, but it also results in long-term gains for the ruling class. You cannot use the State to gradually reform capitalism into communism - it is objectively impossible. The State is a byproduct and symptom of capitalism, and it exists to protect ruling class interests. Now, the methods they use to protect bourgeois hegemony can vary, but its purposes are ultimately the same. Capitalism and the State are not independent actors of one another, they in fact have a symbiotic relationship that cannot be treated as being mutually exclusive. The ruling class and working class have opposite interests that cannot be reconciled, and the State will always act in the interests of the ruling class.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

*In an exaggerated Bogan accent*

G'day mate! Throw some snags on the fucking barbie and grab a stubbie!

STRAYA ****!

*End ridiculous accent*

Seriously, welcome my newest Aussie Comrade!

And here's an Aussie song for your welcome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McsWKczU6wc

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I am so radical, even for Marxiavelli standards.

Welcome mate, don't listen too much to people like Marxiavelli who think they prove their radicalness by saying they are.