Hello

[d3crypt]

I am a 15 year old metalhead and democratic socialist from LA. :)

[Q]

Welcome :)

If you have political questions, you can ask them in the Learning forum. That's why it's there after all!

If you have questions about your account, don't hesitate to send me a PM or ask here.

What are your political ideas, if any? "Democratic socialist" is a little vague after all ;)

[c0mr4d3]

welcome abroad, comrade :D would be glad if we chatted sometime

[Fourth Internationalist]

Welcome to RevLeft! I'm also 15! :D

[d3crypt]

Well i don't agree with communism for one. I feel a direct democratic economy is the best way to go. Oh and i love clockwork orange by the way.

[Comrade Nasser]

sup bro

[Q]

Well i don't agree with communism for one. I feel a direct democratic economy is the best way to go. Oh and i love clockwork orange by the way.

That is communism though. A free association of producers where the means of production are held in common in order to achieve a free society where human needs are the basis of life.

If you're thinking about the USSR, I agree that this isn't communism. In fact I recommend a video on the subject (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russiai-theories-soviet-t168685/index.html), if you're interested, about a Marxist critique on the USSR.

[d3crypt]

The problem is nobody has ever gotten past the first stage to communism. I gues if there was no dictator stage i would be more likely to support it.

[Q]

The problem is nobody has ever gotten past the first stage to communism. I gues if there was no dictator stage i would be more likely to support it.

And there isn't. What Marx and Engels called the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is an extreme democracy.

To compare: We're currently living in a parliamentary democracy (in most Western countries anyway) but we all know this "democracy" is rigged in favor of the ruling class, the capitalists. So, in Marxist terms, we could then speak of a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie".

So, these "dictatorships" express a class relation, not a political form. the political form of working class rule could be expressed as a Democratic Republic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=18887).

[Fourth Internationalist]

The problem is nobody has ever gotten past the first stage to communism. I gues if there was no dictator stage i would be more likely to support it.

While I would say Marxism doesn't advocate a dictatorship by the common definition, you can look into libertarian Marxism and anarchism if you dislike Leninist style socialism, like I do.

[The-Anarcho-Syndicalist]

Ah, I'm 15 aswell. Welcome!

A lot of people mistake Leninism for the only real kind of communism. This however is false. There are loads of different ways to reach communism.

[Comrade #138672]

Indeed. The dictatorship of the proletariat can be a little misleading at first, but it is the correct way to express what we need to achieve. The dictatorship of the proletariat excludes the bourgeoisie, but it is still more democratic than the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which excludes the proletariat, i.e. the majority.

This is the only way to accomplish our goals.

[d3crypt]

Well that clears it up a bit

[The Idler]

Direct democracy is great, but speaking as a socialist who wants direct democracy across all of society, 'democratic socialism', as in the particular tendency and its economic ideas about democracy being compatible with the existence of money, has its limits.

[JPSartre12]

Welcome to revleft, comrade. I look forward to seeing you around the forum.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

[d3crypt]

I have changed my mind since my last posts here. I support marxism now, but i feel vanguardism will always turn out to be authoritarian, i stress the need for true democratic marxism

[Q]

I have changed my mind since my last posts here. I support marxism now, but i feel vanguardism will always turn out to be authoritarian, i stress the need for true democratic marxism

I suppose your ideas are still fluid. Let me refer you to my blogpost where I point out the finer differences between vanguardism and "vanguardism" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6435) ;)

[The Idler]

As Engels put it in 1895

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.