conmharáin
20th March 2013, 04:24
My name is Connor. I'm a student, wage-slave, and aspiring comics artist. I live a stone's throw away from the City in a Forest, where conservative sensibilities and "progressive" attitudes mix in almost equal parts, as far as I can see. As for class background, I come from a line of lawyers and other "labor aristocrats" of Munster stock.
I realize that there is another thread dedicated to establishing users' political profiles, but I'd like for my introduction to be my only contribution to the forums in which I discuss myself extensively. This seems as good a place as any to articulate where I am politically.
Vanguard
As for as "vanguard" parties go, I feel that they serve a purpose in organizing political revolution. A political revolution strikes me as a necessary precedent for social revolution, the seizure of the state essential for the seizure of property. The problem with revolutionary parties seems to be that their tendency toward militant administration must persist past the seizure of political power in defense of the revolution's political gains.
Parliamentarianism
Parliamentarian bodies serve capitalism by design. No tyranny has been defeated by following its own protocol.
Unionism
I'm not very impressed with modern trade unions, but they have historically been a powerful tool in the struggle with capitalism. Their overall effect in the modern struggle, though, seems to have been warped by systemic pressure.
Guevara
Guevara was an insightful revolutionary, and I don't believe focalism is irreconcilable with the Marxist conception of socialist revolution.
Centralism
Central planning of production strikes me as a natural consequence of abolishing private property; the character of capitalism is such that productive power is already fairly centralized. It follows that socialistic productive planning would itself be centralized.
Terror
"Terrorism" typically means politically motivated violence not sanctioned by the state. We can count on any anti-capitalist revolution being called "terrorism" in that case. I can't condone the destruction of human life, especially when that life doesn't represent a direct, violent threat against the non-propertied classes. But I struggle with the undeniable truth that, historically, political transformation has been accompanied by atrocity.
Nationalism
I support national liberation movements in that I recognize modern imperialism as a special form of exploitation along national lines. Not all the world can follow one uniform path to socialism, and I see certain expressions of nationalism as positive steps toward humanity's socialist future.
Classes
Socialist political revolution creates a dictatorship of the proletariat. I would support the political suppression of peasantry and the petit-bourgeoisie as classes, even where I would not condone the political suppression of national, racial, or sexual groups, though I realize the potential danger in sanctioning political coercion. A proletarian dictatorship is tricky in that working people are vast in number and varied in political allegiance. It's up to the proletariat to draw the line between protecting the gains of the revolution and recreating capitalism.
World
The most important contemporary event in the world today is the upcoming Dragonball Z movie. It's been seventeen years since the last one (no one counts Evolution), and I'm excited for the new character "Birusu" and the new "Super Saiyan God" form. In all seriousness, though, I can't help but think that the world is approaching something as big as the Second World War.
History
If I had the opportunity to travel backwards through time and be a part of some historical event, I might like to rub elbows with world leaders during World War II or else bum around the Limerick Soviet.
Thinkers
Anti-capitalist thinkers I'm interested in include Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, Guevara, and Veblen. I also enjoy work by Michael Parenti and Stephen Gowans. Fascism is interesting to me as an object of study, especially in the context of history and its relationship with socialism.
U.S.S.R.
I think the Soviet Union, even for a good time after Stalin's death, was a progressive state and a step in the right direction. While flawed and often violent, a lot was accomplished to empower the proletariat and secure a comfortable standard of living for them. Comparing the region's predicaments before, during, and after the Union, I feel safe in saying that, for its problems, a lot was going right with the socialist effort.
With that, you now know more than you could conceivably need to know about who I am as a political individual. To those of you who read all the way through: thank you, and I look forward to our discussions. To those of you who skipped the body of the post, but, for whatever reason, chose to read this last paragraph: sip my piss.
I realize that there is another thread dedicated to establishing users' political profiles, but I'd like for my introduction to be my only contribution to the forums in which I discuss myself extensively. This seems as good a place as any to articulate where I am politically.
Vanguard
As for as "vanguard" parties go, I feel that they serve a purpose in organizing political revolution. A political revolution strikes me as a necessary precedent for social revolution, the seizure of the state essential for the seizure of property. The problem with revolutionary parties seems to be that their tendency toward militant administration must persist past the seizure of political power in defense of the revolution's political gains.
Parliamentarianism
Parliamentarian bodies serve capitalism by design. No tyranny has been defeated by following its own protocol.
Unionism
I'm not very impressed with modern trade unions, but they have historically been a powerful tool in the struggle with capitalism. Their overall effect in the modern struggle, though, seems to have been warped by systemic pressure.
Guevara
Guevara was an insightful revolutionary, and I don't believe focalism is irreconcilable with the Marxist conception of socialist revolution.
Centralism
Central planning of production strikes me as a natural consequence of abolishing private property; the character of capitalism is such that productive power is already fairly centralized. It follows that socialistic productive planning would itself be centralized.
Terror
"Terrorism" typically means politically motivated violence not sanctioned by the state. We can count on any anti-capitalist revolution being called "terrorism" in that case. I can't condone the destruction of human life, especially when that life doesn't represent a direct, violent threat against the non-propertied classes. But I struggle with the undeniable truth that, historically, political transformation has been accompanied by atrocity.
Nationalism
I support national liberation movements in that I recognize modern imperialism as a special form of exploitation along national lines. Not all the world can follow one uniform path to socialism, and I see certain expressions of nationalism as positive steps toward humanity's socialist future.
Classes
Socialist political revolution creates a dictatorship of the proletariat. I would support the political suppression of peasantry and the petit-bourgeoisie as classes, even where I would not condone the political suppression of national, racial, or sexual groups, though I realize the potential danger in sanctioning political coercion. A proletarian dictatorship is tricky in that working people are vast in number and varied in political allegiance. It's up to the proletariat to draw the line between protecting the gains of the revolution and recreating capitalism.
World
The most important contemporary event in the world today is the upcoming Dragonball Z movie. It's been seventeen years since the last one (no one counts Evolution), and I'm excited for the new character "Birusu" and the new "Super Saiyan God" form. In all seriousness, though, I can't help but think that the world is approaching something as big as the Second World War.
History
If I had the opportunity to travel backwards through time and be a part of some historical event, I might like to rub elbows with world leaders during World War II or else bum around the Limerick Soviet.
Thinkers
Anti-capitalist thinkers I'm interested in include Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hoxha, Mao, Guevara, and Veblen. I also enjoy work by Michael Parenti and Stephen Gowans. Fascism is interesting to me as an object of study, especially in the context of history and its relationship with socialism.
U.S.S.R.
I think the Soviet Union, even for a good time after Stalin's death, was a progressive state and a step in the right direction. While flawed and often violent, a lot was accomplished to empower the proletariat and secure a comfortable standard of living for them. Comparing the region's predicaments before, during, and after the Union, I feel safe in saying that, for its problems, a lot was going right with the socialist effort.
With that, you now know more than you could conceivably need to know about who I am as a political individual. To those of you who read all the way through: thank you, and I look forward to our discussions. To those of you who skipped the body of the post, but, for whatever reason, chose to read this last paragraph: sip my piss.