I've learned a lot on here.. Thank you.

[tooAlive]

When I first came on here I was expecting to be banned quite quickly. As I had associated communism with oppressive, authoritarian, murderous governments, I couldn't understand how anyone would defend that sort of ideology.

I came here ready to pick a fight with you guys, and start tearing apart your arguments. But the one that actually had much learning to do was myself. You guys were totally not what I was expecting, and what you taught me about communism is pretty much the opposite of the perception I came here with.

I can now understand that the "true communism" most of you on here advocate for has never been implemented. And while I don't consider myself to be a supporter of this ideology, I can absolutely understand why some people would. And I totally respect that.

And also, to be completely honest, you guys were much easier to talk to (and much more educated) than most American Liberals I'm used to debating with. ;)1

In case you're wondering, I consider myself to be more of a Classical Liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism)/Libertarian.

And even though most would probably say that our ways of thinking are polar opposites, I'm actually very thankful I came on here and learned as much as I did about it.

So once again, thank you to everyone that contributed to my threads and helped me better understand your "revolutionary" left way of thinking. :grin:

All the best,

Andrew

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Sure we can't draw you to the left side of libertarianism, eh?

[Tim Cornelis]

Sure we can't draw you to the left side of libertarianism, eh?

He will. The seed has been planted and is watered by inner-curiosity. Mwuaha.

[tooAlive]

Sure we can't draw you to the left side of libertarianism, eh?

You know, I've actually been wondering what the difference between left and right libertarianism really is.

Here in the US there's only one flavor of Libertarianism, and it's on the right side of the American political spectrum in regards to the two primary Democrat and Republican parties.

So I'm not quite sure what the left and right flavors would represent in regards to international politics. Although I must say that I do hold firm American Conservative beliefs in regards to how I live my life. But I don't feel the need to impose those beliefs on others, hence why I identify as a libertarian.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Things like anti capitalist free markets, autogestion, participatory economics/democracy et cetera. Kevin Carson is a good introduction, especially this essay (http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html) if coming from an Austro-libertarian (as I was) perspective. Chomsky is also pretty good.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well there are a couple resources.

http://libcom.org/
Supposedly it is really good, and from the few articles I've read I'd say that I agree.

http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article3646.html
The collected works of Kobad Ghandy, I haven't read much of his stuff but he is supposed to be a Libertarian Maoist

[tooAlive]

Things like anti capitalist free markets, autogestion, participatory economics/democracy et cetera. Kevin Carson is a good introduction, especially this essay (http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html) if coming from an Austro-libertarian (as I was) perspective. Chomsky is also pretty good.

Okay, I'll definitely have to look into that. As an "anti-capitalist free-market" sounds like an oxymoron to me. Lol

To me, capitalism represents free markets with very little regulations and no government/state intervention. Again, this is based on my understanding of American politics.

I'm sure the word "capitalism" has just a big negative meaning to you guys as the word "communism" has to people here in the states.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Good...good...

Our evil conspiracy is going along just as planned. ;)1

I'm glad that this forum helped you out in some way. Stick around, I'm sure there is more you can pick up from this site. :)

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

To me, capitalism represents free markets with very little regulations and no government/state intervention. Again, this is based on my understanding of American politics.

Heh, I wont spoil it for you, but that Carson essay I linked you adresses this problem rather well.

[tooAlive]

Heh, I wont spoil it for you, but that Carson essay I linked you adresses this problem rather well.

Thanks for pointing that out; I hadn't noticed there was a link in your last post.

[Paul Pott]

How boring.

[hatzel]

How boring.

It's almost as if you're actively inviting a little tu quoque up in here making posts like this...

[tooAlive]

Heh, I wont spoil it for you, but that Carson essay I linked you adresses this problem rather well.

Just finished going through the essay, and I'm having a bit of a hard time figuring out exactly what system he's trying to promote.

Although I do get the feeling he's associating capitalism with corporatism or cronyism. I suppose that may be how you guys define it, although that's not how we define it here in America.

Under true capitalism for example, there would be no government aid to corporations. In the essay he mentions special treatment given via tax breaks and expenditures. Again, under a true capitalistic economy, that wouldn't be the case.

Of course, it may just be that my definition of capitalism is different that yours or his.

And as a classical liberal/fiscal conservative, I'm a supporter of the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/) (H.R. 25). So with that in place, there would be no way for certain corporations or entities to garner special help from the government/state in the form of favorable tax breaks, as there would eb no tax on any for of income.

He also says that without corporate welfare, many Fortune 500 companies would go bankrupt. As they should; artificially keeping a company afloat with tax dollars (I.E. redistribution) isn't a quality of a true capitalist/free-market economy.

Not sure if these beliefs place me on the right or left side of libertarianism. Here in America there is only "libertarianism."

[Paul Pott]

It's almost as if you're actively inviting a little tu quoque up in here making posts like this...

Then the bouncer will show it the pavement.

[Philosophos]

I really wish there were more people than you :grin:

[tooAlive]

I do have another question, however. And please don't take it the wrong way.

In "true communism," would reactionaries like myself be allowed to join the revolutionaries in discussions and activities, or would we be limited in interaction like the Opposing Ideologies sub-section of this forum? Although I do understand that you must get many trolls on here, and it's done to keep things tidy. That's understandable.

;)1

That's just something I first thought of when I had originally joined.

[Crixus]

Sure we can't draw you to the left side of libertarianism, eh?
There's only one side of libertarianism. The left. Their claim to both libertarianism and anarchism is a joke. Like atheist Christians.

[Crixus]

Heh, I wont spoil it for you, but that Carson essay I linked you adresses this problem rather well.
Too bad Keven Carson is knee deep in a rather large tank of ravenous alligators when it comes to his 'problems' (his problems mostly surround his silly market rhetoric).

[tooAlive]

There's only one side of libertarianism. The left. Their claim to both libertarianism and anarchism is a joke. Like atheist Christians.

What country do you live in, if you don't mind me asking?

Reason is that here in America, libertarians are on the right side of the political spectrum.

I'm curious to know if although I consider myself to be a right-winger by American standards, I'd be considered a leftist by International standards.

[Crixus]

What country do you live in, if you don't mind me asking?

Reason is that here in America, libertarians are on the right side of the political spectrum.

I'm in America, but, you see, I'm not ignorant. Libertarianism was always about left wing/socialist theory until these Orwellian doublespeaking strange alien "anarchists" and "libertarians" started popping up making excuses for property, wage labor, rent and interest.

[tooAlive]

I'm in America, but, you see, I'm not ignorant. Libertarianism was always about left wing/socialist theory until these Orwellian doublespeaking strange alien "anarchists" and "libertarians" started popping up making excuses for property, wage labor, rent and interest.

Hmm. Looks like you're talking about a different form of libertarianism I'm not familiar with then. Forgive me for my ignorance.

This is the flavor I subscribe to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Would you consider that to be left or right wing?

[Crixus]

Hmm. Looks like you're talking about a different form of libertarianism I'm not familiar with then. Forgive me for my ignorance.

This is the flavor I subscribe to:


Would you consider that to be left or right wing?

Ya, classical liberalism. As in, so called free markets. It has nothing to do with being libertarian. Would you like for me to post a long detailed histrory of classical liberalism? Would you read it? Would it matter? The last meaningful post I made on this site which took me more than ten minutes was basically ignored so I'd rather not waste time with posts of an extended nature.

[Pessimist]

I was once a (right) libertarian too, but I eventually came around. :grin:

Anyways, great post.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Pardon my comrade, he must have lost his manners. Of course right-wing libertarianism exists. To suggest otherwise based on some idea of a "true" libertarianism is utterly absurd.

And to answer your question on whether fellows like you will be able to exersize free speech, I'll post a conversation Mao had with his daughter that sums the issue up:


the following is a transcript of one of Mao's conversations with his niece Wang Hai-Jung (December 21, 1970.) It deals with HOW revolutionaries should expose and isolate reactionaries -- and how they should deal with criticism from hostile forces. It touches directly on the question of whether to criminalize reactionary speech.

Hai-jung: Class struggle is very acute in our school. I hear that reactionary slogans have been found, some written in English on the blackboard of our English Department.

Chairman: What reactionary slogans have been written?

Hai-jung: I know only one. It is, 'Chiang wan sui.'

Chairman: How does it read in English?

Hai-jung: 'Long live Chiang.'

[i.e. a slogan, written in english, upholding Chiang Kai-Shek the leader of Nationalist Kuimintang Party that was overthrown by the communist revolution in 1949.]

Chairman: What else has been written?

Hai-jung: I don't know any others. I know only that one.

Chairman: Well, let this person write more and post them outdoors for all people to see. Does he kill people?

Hai-jung: I don't know if he kills people or not. If we find out who he is, we should dismiss him from school and send him away for labour reform.

Chairman: Well, so long as he doesn't kill people, we should not dismiss him, nor should we send him away for labour reform. Let him stay in school and continue to study. You people should hold a meeting and ask him to explain in what way Chiang Kai-shek is good and what good things he has done. On our part, you may tell why Chiang Kai-shek is not good.

Chairman: How many people are there in your school?

Hai-jung: About 3,000, including faculty and staff members.

Chairman: Among the 3,000 let us say there are seven or eight counter-revolutionaries.

Hai-jung: Even one would be bad. How could we tolerate seven or eight?

Chairman: You shouldn't be all stirred up by one slogan.

Hai-jung: Why should there be seven or eight counter-revolutionaries?

Chairman: When there are many, you can set up opposition. There can be teachers in opposition. Only they should not kill.

Hai-jung: Our school has realized the class line. Among the new students 70 per cent are workers and sons and daughters of poor and lower-middle farmers. Others are sons and daughters of cadres and heroic officers and men.

Chairman: How many sons and daughters of cadres are there in your class?

Hai-jung: In addition to myself, there are two, while others are the sons and daughters of workers and poor and lower-middle farmers. They do well. I learn much from them.

Chairman: Are they on good terms with you? Do they like you?

Hai-jung: I think our relationship is good. I find it easy to associate with them and they find the same with me.

Chairman: That's good.

Hai-jung: But there is the son of a cadre who doesn't do well. In class he doesn't listen attentively to the teacher's lecture and after class, he doesn't do homework. He likes to read fiction. Sometimes he dozes off in the dormitory and sometimes he doesn't attend the Saturday afternoon meeting. On Sunday he doesn't return to school on time. Sometimes on Sunday when our class and section hold a meeting, he doesn't show up. All of us have a bad impression of him.

Chairman: Do your teachers allow the students to take a nap or read fiction in class? We should let the students read fiction and take a nap in class, and we should look after their health. Teachers should lecture less and make the students read more. I believe the student you referred to will be very capable in the future since he had the courage to be absent from the Saturday meeting and not to return to school on time on Sunday. When you return to school, you may tell him that it is too early to return to school even at eight or nine in the evening, he may delay it until eleven or twelve. Whose fault is it that you should hold a meeting Sunday night?

Hai-jung: When I studied at the normal School, we usually had no meeting Sunday night. We were allowed to do whatever we liked that night. One day several cadres of the branch headquarters of the League (I was then a committee member of the branch headquarters) agreed to lead an organized life on Sunday night but many other League members did not favour the idea. Some of them even said to the political counsellor that Sunday was a free day and if any meeting was called at night, it would be inconvenient for us to go home. The political counsellor eventually bowed to their opinion and told us to change the date for the meeting.

Chairman: This political counsellor did the right thing.

Hai-jung: But now our school spends the whole Sunday night holding meetings -- class meetings, branch headquarters committee meetings or meetings of study groups for party lessons. According to my calculation, from the beginning of the current semester to date, there has not been one Sunday or Sunday night without any meetings.

Chairman: When you return to school, you should take the lead to rebel. Don't return to school on Sunday and don't attend any meetings on that day.

Hai-jung: But I won't dare. This is the school system. All students are required to return to school on time. If I don't people will say that I violate the school system.

Chairman: Don't care about the system. Just don't return to school. Just say you want to violate the school system.

Hai-jung: I cannot do that. If I do, I will be criticized.

Chairman: I don't think you will be very capable in the future. You are afraid of being accused of violating the school system, of criticism, of a bad record, of being expelled from school, of failing to get party membership. Why should you be afraid of so many things? The worst that can come to you is expulsion from school. The school should allow the students to rebel. Rebel when you return to school.

Hai-jung: People will say that as the Chairman's relative, I fail to follow his instructions and play a leading role in upsetting the school system. They will accuse me of arrogance and self-content, and of lack of organization and discipline.

Chairman: Look at you! You are afraid of being criticized for arrogance and self-content, and for lack of organization and discipline. Why should you be afraid? You can say that just because you are Chairman Mao's relative, you should follow his instructions to rebel. I think the student you mentioned will be more capable than you for he dared to violate the school system. I think you people are too metaphysical.

[Crixus]

Pardon my comrade, he must have lost his manners. Of course right-wing libertarianism exists. To suggest otherwise based on some idea of a "true" libertarianism is utterly absurd.



Does fascist communism exist? Fascist communist theory? Perhaps it does, I've heard of modern "NAZI" communists in Russia but the fact they run around advocating such a thing doesn't make it legitimate in any way shape or form. Is it a real thing? Do they have any scientific or material claim to their ideology or is fascist communism in modern Russia a joke?

[tooAlive]

Pardon my comrade, he must have lost his manners. Of course right-wing libertarianism exists. To suggest otherwise based on some idea of a "true" libertarianism is utterly absurd.

And to answer your question on whether fellows like you will be able to exersize free speech, I'll post a conversation Mao had with his daughter that sums the issue up:

That answers my question. Thank you.

[tooAlive]

Ya, classical liberalism. As in, so called free markets. It has nothing to do with being libertarian. Would you like for me to post a long detailed histrory of classical liberalism? Would you read it? Would it matter? The last meaningful post I made on this site which took me more than ten minutes was basically ignored so I'd rather not waste time with posts of an extended nature.

I think I've found what you're talking about. This is on the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism


Some political scholars assert that in most countries the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with left anarchism, and some express disapproval of free-market capitalists calling themselves libertarians.[12] Conversely, other academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives argue that free-market libertarianism has been successfully propagated beyond the U.S. since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties[13][14] and that "libertarianism" is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position.[15][16] Likewise, many libertarian capitalists disapprove of socialists calling themselves "libertarian."[5] In the United States, where the meaning of liberalism has parted significantly from classical liberalism, classical liberalism has largely been renamed libertarianism and is associated with "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political views (going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States),[17][18] along with a foreign policy of non-interventionism.

Looks like we're not the only ones arguing for the ownership of the term, libertarianism.

And yes, I would read your post. Although I do think I understand what you were referring to.

[tooAlive]

Does fascist communism exist? Fascist communist theory? Perhaps it does, I've heard of modern "NAZI" communists in Russia but the fact they run around advocating such a thing doesn't make it legitimate in any way shape or form. Is it a real thing? Do they have any scientific or material claim to their ideology or is fascist communism in modern Russia a joke?

I don't know if fascist communism exists or not, but I do know that the Libertarian Party exists here in the US, and is very real.

Their beliefs are pretty much synonymous with those of classical liberalism like I mentioned before.

http://www.lp.org/

[Crixus]

I think I've found what you're talking about. This is on the wiki page:



Looks like we're not the only ones arguing for the ownership of the term, libertarianism.

And yes, I would read your post. Although I do think I understand what you were referring to.
I'd love nothing more than to rehash this endless debate I've had over the last 15 years but Instead of me wasting 10 minutes giving a history of free market theory and the actual market read:

The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well, National Bolshevism is a thing but I wouldn't consider it based in Marxism or "Stalinism" (that is, the theoretical contributions of Stalin). I suppose it would be more accurate to say that is tangential to socialism much like how Juche does not consider it's self a branch of Marxist-Leninism but an original formulation that is tangential to Marxist-Leninism.

[tooAlive]

I'd love nothing more than to rehash this endless debate I've had over the last 15 years but Instead of me wasting 10 minutes giving a history of free market theory and the actual market read:

The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation




Thanks, I found it on LibCom. It's around 400 pages so I'll have to get to it when I have some more time.

But thanks again for the the reference.

[Crixus]

That answers my question. Thank you.
No it doesn't exist. Yes people call themselves "libertarians" in America, people who advocate free market capitalism but if I call myself frog does that make me a frog? Would my "frogness" be real or just a subjective claim to being a frog? It would only exist in my mind. There would be no material basis for me calling myself a frog if indeed I was not a frog.

[tooAlive]

No it doesn't exist. Yes people call themselves "libertarians" in America, people who advocate free market capitalism but if I call myself frog does that make me a frog?

I totally understand what you're saying, but the Libertarian Party is an actual established party with real members here in the United States.

Gary Johnson is a LP member and was one of the candidates in this past election.

I can see how the American "libertarians" may not follow the same ideology as the traditional libertarians, but they certainly do exist. And I can also understand how that might make you feel uncomfortable, especially if you don't fancy seeing your ideology's name associated with the "right wing."

[Crixus]

I totally understand what you're saying, but the Libertarian Party is an actual established party with real members here in the United States.

Gary Johnson is a LP member and was one of the candidates in this past election.

I can see how the American "libertarians" may not follow the same ideology as the traditional libertarians, but they certainly do exist. And I can also understand how that might make you feel uncomfortable, especially if you don't fancy seeing your ideology's name associated with the "right wing."

Sure they "exist" but their existence is based on a complete perversion of libertarianism. It's like Christians calling themselves atheists. It's an illegitimate existence which in reality doesn't exist.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Sure they "exist" but their existence is based on a complete perversion of libertarianism. It's like Christians calling themselves atheists. It's an illegitimate existence which in reality doesn't exist.

But of course, the term "Anarchism" was created by a man who believed in the market, and yet all "true" anarchists reject extange. Well, they oppose markets when right-wingers propose them, not when Bakunin proposed a "communal" marketplace.

Anarchism, unlike Marxism, does not have a consistent epistemological framework for analysis and theoretical development. It commits the same error of Utopianism when it proposes the abolition of the state, in that it is so concerned with the exact form that proceeds it that there are a billion different propositions that all claim to be the "true" anarchism. They are all false, there is no such thing as true anarchism or libertarianism.

[Crixus]

But of course, the term "Anarchism" was created by a man who believed in the market, and yet all "true" anarchists reject extange. Well, they oppose markets when right-wingers propose them, not when Bakunin proposed a "communal" marketplace.

Anarchism, unlike Marxism, does not have a consistent epistemological framework for analysis and theoretical development. It commits the same error of Utopianism when it proposes the abolition of the state, in that it is so concerned with the exact form that proceeds it that there are a billion different propositions that all claim to be the "true" anarchism. They are all false, there is no such thing as true anarchism or libertarianism.
I already know many of them are idealists but Bakunin (the source of actual anarchism) was a materialist. I'm not an anarchist mind you so please don't put me in a position to defend actual anarchism- what I WILL do is defend it on the grounds that it has always been a part of the broader socialist tradition. Their nonsense claim to anarchism came after Bakunin with Tucker and Spooner in America but even right wing "libertarians" and "anarchists" do a good job of cherry picking Tucker and Spooner.

[#FF0000]

Hmm. Looks like you're talking about a different form of libertarianism I'm not familiar with then. Forgive me for my ignorance.

This is the flavor I subscribe to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Would you consider that to be left or right wing?

A lot of classical liberals had views that would've been considered left-wing today. Depends on the thinker, really. I'd say that modern American libertarianism is very, very far removed from classical liberalism, though.

[Crixus]

A lot of classical liberals had views that would've been considered left-wing today. Depends on the thinker, really. I'd say that modern American libertarianism is very, very far removed from classical liberalism, though.
I'll suggest you also read "The invention of capitalism: The secret history of primitive accumulation". Please do in fact- you'll love it. It was recommended to me on youtube 2 days ago and I read it in one day. It's a very detailed expansion on Marx's work on "so called primitive accumulation" but this book completely exposes classical liberalism for what it was. I know Chomsky said this and that about Smith and company but read the book as it's not based on classical liberals major works but letters, publications and such that they wrote which flew in the face of their known views.

[LOLseph Stalin]

This post made me smile. Seriously. It warms my heart to see that people are actually opening their minds and taking the time to learn what communism really is :). I wish more people would, especially in North America.

[Orange Juche]

What country do you live in, if you don't mind me asking?

Reason is that here in America, libertarians are on the right side of the political spectrum.

I'm curious to know if although I consider myself to be a right-winger by American standards, I'd be considered a leftist by International standards.

Right wing "libertarianism" is not considered as such by left libertarians because, essentially, in a right libertarian system all that happens is the state is replaced by a number of smaller unaccountable tyrannies (businesses) where the people have no say in what they do, but their actions do impact people's lives. Left libertarianism is libertarianism, but brings democracy and control by and for the people to the grassroots level - it is the most democratic, and most libertarian system.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sure they "exist" but their existence is based on a complete perversion of libertarianism. It's like Christians calling themselves atheists. It's an illegitimate existence which in reality doesn't exist.I'm afraid it's just something that North American anarchists have to deal with and explain. Revolutionary Marxists have to qualify what they mean when they say "socialism" for similar reasons.

Unless a left libertarian movement emerges, until a non-Stalinist communist movement emerges, the common meaning of these the terms, "libertarian" and "Communist", are just going to be defined by others.

Before the civil rights movement, the mainstream view of Southern blacks often portrayed people as passive and happily subservient - it took a movement to change that perception (both in progressive and reactionary directions). Even during early civil rights, the mainstream common knowledge was that the north had no "race problem" and it took riots and the emergence of militant black power movements to alter that idea. Leftists are going to be seen as out of touch rich kids or old men, the working class is going to be seen as white straight men in overalls until revolutionary and working class struggles re-define (and self-define) these preceptions. It's just a lot of explaining for us until then.