Explain why you view your tendency as the best/most rational

[Skyhilist]

Note: This thread isn't intended to cause arguments. Only for people to provide rational explanations of why they view their tendency to be the most practical. I'd like to hear people who care to explain why they've chosen their specific tendencies, rather than see a back and forth conversation between two people on why the other person is wrong. If this is unrealistic, I'm sorry.

Given that, here's what would be nice to see in this thread.
As an example, suppose I'm a Trotskyist, I'd just say "Well I view trotskyism as the most rational tendency because a, b, c, which other tendencies I feel don't because a,b,c" or something like that. I understand if there are a few minor issues that come up (e.g. "Well you said other tendencies don't address a,b,c, but really they do because a,b,c which is why I support them0.

Anyways, I think you get the idea. So what makes your tendency the best in your minds, comrades?

[ellipsis]

Anarchists actually do concrete things to better people's lives.

[International_Solidarity]

Trotskyism is a view of Communism in which we attempt to find a solution to the main problem that has faced Communism, from a Revolutionary to a healthy, working class, regime. Leon Trotsky saw the Russian Revolution first hand, and had more experience with Socialized planning from a Revolutionary era to an eras of wartime and political degradation, yet Trotsky is later able to re-examine the entire revolution and in A Revolution that Failed Analyzes these problems. He believes in a better way of coming about Socialism. He studies how Socialism is impossible in one country, and uses his own experience and examples as proof of this, and this is what mainly drew me to the Trotskyist tendency. Although, I believe that becoming too involved in our tendencies can lead us astray. We need to band together to fight Capitalism in Solidarity, if we do not we cannot win this fight. We can have the tendency argument after we get rid of the oppressor, Capitalism.

[vanukar]

I think tendencies and politics are stupid. Does that count?

[Geiseric]

I think tendencies and politics are stupid. Does that count?

You think politics are stupid? why are you on the forum?

I'd think that most "tendencies" would just call themselves Marxist, and that they believe they're the closest to legitimate Marxism. That is unless you're an anarchist which the same principle applies.

[Red Enemy]

I don't have a tendency...therefore my views are vastly superior.

[feeLtheLove]

I don't have a tendency...therefore my views are vastly superior.


Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 124
Tendency: Marxists
Rep Power: 3
Reputation: 207

So in some small way you do ;)

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Because everyone else is a revisionist CIA-backed force of counterrevolution.

[The Idler]

Impossibilist because when other tendencies are fighting for ruling-class offers of "concrete things to better peoples lives", impossibilists are primarily fighting for the only long-term panacea, a stateless, classless society of free access.

[Red Enemy]

Impossibilist because when other tendencies are fighting for ruling-class offers of "concrete things to better peoples lives", impossibilists are primarily fighting for the only long-term panacea, a stateless, classless society of free access.
Lol.

Let me know when you start getting elected into parliament.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Because Left Communism is the hippest tendency within the left, or maybe least nerdy would be a better way of putting it.

[Yuppie Grinder]

On the real tho, I like Left Communism for it's critiques of substitutionism, democratism, it's unwavering internationalism, and its unwillingness to apologize for certain incarnations of bourgeois rule because they had red flags.

[ed miliband]

Anarchists actually do concrete things to better people's lives.

so do some religious people, conservatives, liberals, maoists, swp-ers; the list is endless. and what? i don't see how "do[ing] concrete things to better people's lives" under capitalism is anything other than reformism (especially in the manner you express it).

[l'Enfermé]

My tendency is superior because a great man with beautiful facial hair said it is.

[Let's Get Free]

I'm an anarchist because I oppose social hierarchies and social inequalities. Anarchism is an ideology that constantly seeks to abolish these and adapts accordingly to other social struggles arising.

[sixdollarchampagne]

... Trotsky saw the Russian Revolution first hand, and had more experience with Socialized planning from a Revolutionary era to an eras of wartime and political degradation, yet Trotsky is later able to re-examine the entire revolution and in A Revolution that Failed Analyzes these problems.

Dear International Solidarity: Please forgive this small quibble, but Trotsky's book explaining the Soviet Union is called The Revolution Betrayed. It was published in 1937.

The expression, "A Revolution that Failed," sounds an awful lot like the title of a famous anti-Communist screed, "The God That Failed" (1949), in which, if memory serves, a bunch of renegades from Stalinism renounced their previous political views.

* * *

To respond to the subject of this thread, I work with a Trotskyist tendency that is active in Latin America and has sections in Europe also. I visited comrades of that tendency in Latin America twice, and those people seem like the real deal to me. (I got to address a hall full of Latin American workers, which made me as happy as a Rottweiler with a frisbee.) The group is in sync with workers' occupations and recovery of enterprises abandoned by the bosses; they are also in favor of workers' self-management, in the sense that the workers should be the ones who make the decisions about the enterprise where they work, all of which sounds great to me.

[ellipsis]

so do some religious people, conservatives, liberals, maoists, swp-ers; the list is endless. and what? i don't see how "do[ing] concrete things to better people's lives" under capitalism is anything other than reformism (especially in the manner you express it).

Isn't that the point of revolution? Not talking at conferences and holding state sanctioned political events?

[Althusser]

On the real tho, I like Left Communism for it's critiques of substitutionism, democratism, it's unwavering internationalism, and its unwillingness to apologize for certain incarnations of bourgeois rule because they had red flags.

Lol don't mean to flame, but left communists are to communists, what libertarians are to capitalists.

"That's not real capitalism." w/ ridiculous and impossible end goals that they consider real capitalism.

"That wasn't real socialism." w/ unworkable and unorganized means to create real socialism because everything else is state capitalism.

I don't like confining myself to a tendency. If the situation arises where the working class is class conscious and militant, I wouldn't insist on a vanguard. But in a situation where education is necessary to guide the revolution in the right direction to keep the oppressors from being replaced by more oppressors, I am in full support of a vanguard party. I believe that the affirmation of "socialism in one country" is not a viable way of spreading socialism. I do agree with parts of Trotsky's Permanent Revolution theory, but I think that quality of life of the workers and peasants in areas liberated by the DotP, should be a priority, rather than just something kicked to the side as they "hold the fort" and fight in nation after nation to overthow the state with the comrades of that struggling nation.

I support National Liberation struggle like Vietnam from French colonialism. I support guerilla warfare to overthrow the bourgeoisie and make the quality of life of the people better, whilst holding the fort against the restoration of capitalism, and spreading socialism. Rip apart my views limb from limb. I won't mind, and might learn something seeing another perspective.

[ed miliband]

Isn't that the point of revolution? Not talking at conferences and holding state sanctioned political events?

that's really an entirely false dichotomy, though.

and the point of revolution is the abolition of the state and capital.

[Rational Radical]

I consider myself a libertarian socialist so i can borrow from and embrace the best of both anarchism and Marxism in order to establish a direct,democratic society in which we all benefit.

[ellipsis]

that's really an entirely false dichotomy, though.

and the point of revolution is the abolition of the state and capital.

But the abolition of capital isn't an end into itself. It is driven by a desire to liberate humanity and create a better society. Many forms of direct action focus on the latter, creating anti-/post-capitalist infrastructure and relations.

[ed miliband]

But the abolition of capital isn't an end into itself. It is driven by a desire to liberate humanity and create a better society. Many forms of direct action focus on the latter, creating anti-/post-capitalist infrastructure and relations.

it's driven by a variety of things, i don't think that's very important in this case, except inasmuch as i don't think anarchism is about a "desire to liberate humanity" but for humanity to liberate itself (or however malatesta put it).

and i don't think it's possible to create "anti-/post-capitalist infrastructure and relations" in capitalist society, but that is another can of worms entirely.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Wait, who "chooses" their tendency in a careful rational manner?
Haven't y'all ever been swept up in something? Drawn to people? Lived in the midst of a struggle?

Probably if you read through the books and picked the most "rational" tendency, you picked wrong.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Wait, who "chooses" their tendency in a careful rational manner?
Haven't y'all ever been swept up in something? Drawn to people? Lived in the midst of a struggle?

Probably if you read through the books and picked the most "rational" tendency, you picked wrong.

Oh you! :blushing:

[Zostrianos]

Because I view authoritarianism as entirely contrary to real socialism - Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism are completely abhorrent to me. At the same time I find anarchism to be very hard to put into practice in a modern society. Thus, I came to the conclusion that Luxemburgism best represents my views.

[Red Enemy]

I am anti-reform in the sense I oppose reforms that hurt the working class and poor -- increasing retirement age, lowering minimum wage, privatization of healthcare, etc.

The attitude of "I'd rather sit in my house and whine" rather then be out educating the proletariat and fighting side by side to defend reforms or achieve reforms, is stupid.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Marxism - it's not too libertarian to be impossible, but not too authoriarian to become a party dictatorship.

[LiveOnYourFeet]

I am an Anarchist because I believe that no coercive hierarchies should have control over peoples' lives. I believe that hierarchies are parasitic to the world, and will exploit anybody they want in order to get more wealth and power. You can look at Capitalism, corporate industries are destroying our planet, and abusing workers in foreign countries, for what? Bigger profits, more power, less costs. What does the state do? They invade other countries, bomb the shit out of people trying to fight back the invasion, and establish puppet governments, for what? More power, more influence, and bigger profits from imperialist ventures.

Hierarchies ultimately lead to abuse, and we've seen where that ends up. That's why I'm for abolishing all hierarchies, it ultimately leads to death, destruction, and abuses for the ruling class.

[Captain Ahab]

Lol don't mean to flame, but left communists are to communists, what libertarians are to capitalists.

"That's not real capitalism." w/ ridiculous and impossible end goals that they consider real capitalism.

"That wasn't real socialism." w/ unworkable and unorganized means to create real socialism because everything else is state capitalism.


I'm very interested in your explanation of how the Soviet Union or its satellites were stateless and classless societies.

[ind_com]

Because my tendency is the most successful in implementing its theory and expanding revolution through class war.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Because my tendency is the most successful in implementing its theory and expanding revolution through class war.

It was even successful in creating one of the world's greatest capitalist superpowers, where workers are beaten to death by the party/business owners if they so much as ask for a 1$ raise to their 4$ living wage!

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It was even successful in creating one of the world's greatest capitalist superpowers, where workers are beaten to death by the party/business owners if they so much as ask for a 1$ raise to their 4$ living wage!

As if any other tendency hasn't either failed to produce a revolution or led a revolution that degenerated? This really isn't a fair standard to judge any tendency by.

[JPSartre12]

I consider myself a libertarian socialist so i can borrow from and embrace the best of both anarchism and Marxism in order to establish a direct,democratic society in which we all benefit.

I agree with this, and it's one of the chief reasons that I consider myself to be a libertarian socialist.

Also - existential Marxism, because it refuses to surrender human will to purely deterministic factors, and encourages man to soberly make his own future and stresses free will.

[vanukar]

It was even successful in creating one of the world's greatest capitalist superpowers, where workers are beaten to death by the party/business owners if they so much as ask for a 1$ raise to their 4$ living wage!

Don't forget about instigating reactionary, nationalist, pro-capitalist peasant movements!

[ind_com]

It was even successful in creating one of the world's greatest capitalist superpowers, where workers are beaten to death by the party/business owners if they so much as ask for a 1$ raise to their 4$ living wage!

What YABM said. And let's not forget that the capitalist power has openly abandoned my tendency, while thousands of militant strikes that take place there each year gather under our banners from the 60s.


Don't forget about instigating reactionary, nationalist, pro-capitalist peasant movements!

That is really a pro-imperialist stand. If you don't flamebait more cleverly, you will easily be identified as the right-wing troll that you are, and banned.

[vanukar]

That is really a pro-imperialist stand. If you don't flamebait more cleverly, you will easily be identified as the right-wing troll that you are, and banned.

Uh, no. Support for capitalism is support for imperialism, which is what Maoists thrive on. When you run around supporting New Democracy and Al-Asad, that's pro-imperialism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Don't forget about instigating reactionary, nationalist, pro-capitalist peasant movements!

I'm going to presume you are accusing my tendency of being revisionist because we believe that the peasantry is capable of having a communist consciousness.

You know who else was a revisionist? That Karl Marx guy

http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2010/04/marx-on-russia.html

[vanukar]

Well then you're assuming too much. I never said anything about peasants not being able to achieve "communist consciousness," all I said was that Maoist groups are made up of reactionary peasants wanting to institute state capitalism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well then you're assuming too much. I never said anything about peasants not being able to achieve "communist consciousness," all I said was that Maoist groups are made up of reactionary peasants wanting to institute state capitalism.

Substansate this claim or I don't see any reason to continue this discussion.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Uh, no. Support for capitalism is support for imperialism, which is what Maoists thrive on. When you run around supporting New Democracy and Al-Asad, that's pro-imperialism.

None of us support Assad, well no MLM folks anyway. Shitty ML-MZT and Maoist third worldist might but noone cares about them

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Because my tendency seeks to destroy all division within the revolutionary working class.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I am a Trot. To me" Trotskyism" represents the continuing development of revolutionary Marxism. This includes the theory of Permanent revolution and the Theory of Combined and Uneven Development. These ideas were mentioned or were implicit in the thought of Marx and were further developed by Trotsky, Lenin, and many others.

Those in the Trotskyist tradition, such as Ted Grant, have offered the best explanation of Third World Left Bonapartist regimes such as Syria, Libya, etc.

[cclark501]

I support a vanguard party, leading a people's war to gain power and then using the aggrivation of class warfare to purge the enemies of the working class and supporting the permant revolution around the world. So I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist-Stalinist-Maoist or MLTSM for short

[Rusty Shackleford]

Historically proven method to achieve things. Sure, it hasnt won every time, and most of the success brought on by it have been rolled back drastically and groups adhering to it in name tend to do so, in name only. But, i feel it is quite a useful method. To treat the party as a weapon of sorts to wage class war with and all of that.

[Lucretia]

Because my tendency seeks to destroy all division within the revolutionary working class.

I am hoping this is deliberate irony :laugh:

[sixdollarchampagne]

I am a Trot. To me" Trotskyism" represents the continuing development of revolutionary Marxism....

Those in the Trotskyist tradition, such as Ted Grant, have offered the best explanation of Third World Left Bonapartist regimes such as Syria, Libya, etc.

With respect, I do not see how Ted Grant is "in the Trotskyist tradition." He walked out of the international movement a long time ago, and the characteristic stance of his tendency, everlasting, permanent entrism, with zero exit strategy, is foreign to Trotskyism, which, concerning entrism, counsels, "Get in, recruit everyone you can, then get out." I have not found any place where Trotsky indicates that revolutionaries should spend their entire careers building the imperialist, pro-war, pro-banning orders British Labour Party of Blair and Brown, which is Grant's proudest achievement.

As far as Bonapartism is concerned, the Grantists deny that Chávez is a Bonapartist, which is surely incorrect. Chávez' entire politics is mediating between classes, and, after what?, nearly a decade and a half in power, Chávez' "Bolivarian revolution" has left the Venezuelan bourgeois state entirely unscathed, which makes Chávez not a revolutionary at all, but merely a typical caudillo, and a very successful Bonapartist, since, in a period of mass activism, the workers and their allies have, under Chávez' leadership, not overthrown bourgeois rule.

[Crux]

Note: This thread isn't intended to cause arguments. Only for people to provide rational explanations of why they view their tendency to be the most practical. I'd like to hear people who care to explain why they've chosen their specific tendencies, rather than see a back and forth conversation between two people on why the other person is wrong. If this is unrealistic, I'm sorry.

Given that, here's what would be nice to see in this thread.
As an example, suppose I'm a Trotskyist, I'd just say "Well I view trotskyism as the most rational tendency because a, b, c, which other tendencies I feel don't because a,b,c" or something like that. I understand if there are a few minor issues that come up (e.g. "Well you said other tendencies don't address a,b,c, but really they do because a,b,c which is why I support them0.

Anyways, I think you get the idea. So what makes your tendency the best in your minds, comrades?
Because this is where the action's at. Also I take internationalism seriously so that kind of drew me to trotskyism, and the CWI specifically.

[Sir Comradical]

I'd say somewhere in the vicinity of Marxism-Leninism and strictly Orthodox Trotskyism.

[The Idler]

Lol.

Let me know when you start getting elected into parliament.
You're a bit late, Impossibilists started getting elected into parliament over a century ago
http://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/proletarian.in.politics.htm