What's your tendency, and why?

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Simple question. I'm asking partially out of plain curiousity and partially to get a better understanding of the basic differences between major leftist tendencies. Thanks!:laugh:

[RedMaterialist]

why does the left fragment into so many tendencies and sects?

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

It's a big problem, I agree, but we have to still be willing to talk about it.

[Marshal of the People]

Simple question. I'm asking partially out of plain curiousity and partially to get a better understanding of the basic differences between major leftist tendencies. Thanks!:laugh:



I am a council communist because the great and almighty Lord Pannekoek said so! All hail Lord Pannekoek!

Just joking (though not about the council communist thing, i actually am one), the reason I am a council communist is because I genuinely believe it is the best and most logical system. I don't know how to explain why I like it, to me it just seems logical and the system most likely to work. Everyone has different opinions and beliefs which will draw them to different ideologies and tendencies, it is a matter of personal opinion basically.

[Sabot Cat]

I was and still kind of am unsure how to answer this question, but I will say that I have a Marxist conception of history, power and class, and that I favor revolutionary industrial unionism, anarcho-syndicalism or all-encompassing workers' self-management in a delegative democracy (i.e. any system where the proletariat is organized in decentralized autonomous units like councils or unions) as possible roads to (anarcho-)communism. I simply want a world where people are as unburdened by hierarchy and as free from artificially enforced want as possible, while no one starves to death or dies of diseases that could have been cured.

[Marshal of the People]

I was and still kind of am unsure how to answer this question, but I will say that I have a Marxist conception of history, power and class, and that I favor revolutionary industrial unionism, anarcho-syndicalism or all-encompassing workers' self-management in a delegative democracy (i.e. any system where the proletariat is organized in decentralized autonomous units like councils or unions) as possible roads to (anarcho-)communism. I simply want a world where people are as unburdened by hierarchy and as free from artificially enforced want as possible, while no one starves to death or dies of diseases that could have been cured.

What you just mentioned seems similar to council communism comrade.

[Sea]

Marxist-Leninist. Used to be anti-Leninist, but reading Marx and Lenin cured that rather swiftly.

edit: I also like batman.

edit edit: Yes I agree with Brandon (but not Abe, who was bourgie as hell) so let's change that to scientific socialism. Tendencies suck.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I do not have a tendency, and I'm quite happy with that fact. The word "socialist" suits me just fine.

I think that all of the numerous tendencies have something to offer, but I adhere to none of them individually.

This quote is pretty much my personal mantra on the subject:


"I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views." -Abraham Lincoln

[Sabot Cat]

What you just mentioned seems similar to council communism comrade.

Council communism is completely compatible with what I feel to be the best method of society organization, and to achieve the goal of proletarian liberation. I consider council communists my comrades. :)

[AmilcarCabral]

I am in favor of a workers-state, and in favor of the political system after the workers-state which is anarchist-communism or communist-anarchism, but this super advanced political system is still too far into the future. Right now I am in favor of united fronts composed of all radical leftists in each country of this world. But you know there are many different radical leftist parties in most countries. And in the last decades there has been a rise in social-democratic parties, in the rise and popularity of socialist-reformists like Michelle Bachelet (president of Chile) and Zapatero (former Spain president). And in the USA this kind of left, the reformist left has more visibility, media power like The Green Party, Ralph Nader, Cindy Sheehan and other progressive reformists, while the radical left is almost unknown to the US oppressed.






Simple question. I'm asking partially out of plain curiousity and partially to get a better understanding of the basic differences between major leftist tendencies. Thanks!:laugh:

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I don't think I fall into any official tendency. I call myself a libertarian Marxist or a Marxian anarcho-communist because I'm influenced by both Marxism and some forms of anarchism.

[Brutus]

I don't really have a tendency. You could say I'm a weird mix between bordigism and what is referred to here as "Kautskyism". But I'm still reading and learning, so I'll stick with "communist".

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I am a communist.

[bcbm]

nihilist communist. cuz everything is shit

[Tim Cornelis]

Ideologically I'm close to Left Communism, closer to the Italian than Dutch/German tradition, though not a Bordigist. I support the positions of Left Communism on the role of the party (the leading revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat), the views on opportunism, and class struggle, and materialist analysis. I'm likewise skeptical of fronts, electoralism, and such.
However, these Left Communist positions were developed in a context which presumed the imminence of social revolution, a context now absent. So in order for the Communist Party to carry out its revolutionary task in the future it needs to have a sizeable number of militants and these militants can only be recruited by the stategical approach of Orthodox Marxism (short-term immediate interests and demands, alternative culture, a broad spectrum of activites, as catalyst for revolutionary socialism) which is to be achieved by the political equivalent of dual unionism: a mass party-movement (with the party being an autonomous vanguardist wing of the overall communist-lead movement).

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I'd call myself a communist, although as needs dictate I'll go with libertarian socialist too.

[Brutus]

Ideologically I'm close to Left Communism, closer to the Italian than Dutch/German tradition, though not a Bordigist. I support the positions of Left Communism on the role of the party (the leading revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat), the views on opportunism, and class struggle, and materialist analysis. I'm likewise skeptical of fronts, electoralism, and such.
However, these Left Communist positions were developed in a context which presumed the imminence of social revolution, a context now absent. So in order for the Communist Party to carry out its revolutionary task in the future it needs to have a sizeable number of militants and these militants can only be recruited by the stategical approach of Orthodox Marxism (short-term immediate interests and demands, alternative culture, a broad spectrum of activites, as catalyst for revolutionary socialism) which is to be achieved by the political equivalent of dual unionism, and a mass party-movement (with the party being an autonomous vanguardist wing of the overall communist-lead movement).

Tim explained my views better than me...

[Red Shaker]

I stand for building a mass revolutionary communist party as opposed to a vanguard party or a mass electoral party. The party's program must have the immediate abolition of the wage system, the ending of racism, sexism, and an internationalist perspective. The party must understand the mistakes of the revolutionary movements of the 20th century so as not to repeat them. The party must be involved in the day to day struggles of the working class. The principles it fights for in a new society must be reflected in its organization in the present society. Of the organizations I know of the Progressive Labor Party (www.plp.org) comes closest.

[Brotto Rühle]

I don't really have a tendency. You could say I'm a weird mix between bordigism and what is referred to here as "Kautskyism". But I'm still reading and learning, so I'll stick with "communist".
Thats like saying you're a mix between Balkanized Maoism and Trotskyism.

For me, I consider myself ultra left. Just a Marxist with influence from Ruhle, Pannekoek, James, Dunayevskaya, and others.

[juljd]

I think it's hard to describe my exact tendency. I mainly sympathize with the autonomous left. I'm probably some sort of a libertarian marxist. My main influence is marxism, but I dislike hierarchy so I also take many influences from anarchism. I also favor syndicalism. I'm no Leninist, but I'm not a complete anti-Leninist either. I like some ML's (Che, Fidel are examples) and some ML-movements. Really hate Stalin though.

[G4b3n]

I am an anarchist who favors the Marxist understanding of class and history. I have recently been considering rejecting anarchism in favor of a more Marxist tendency. However, anarchists always seem to have the coolest and most helpful organizations.

[IBleedRed]

Leninist, leaning towards Marxism-Leninism

But really, all these infinite tendencies and groups and parties are damaging to the struggle against capitalism.

[celticnachos]

Leninist, leaning towards Marxism-Leninism

But really, all these infinite tendencies and groups and parties are damaging to the struggle against capitalism.

Those tendencies that taint the face of socialism with dogma directly benefit capitalism. Besides, in reality what have they actually achieved that is significant? Whatever though, those tendencies are tiny sects in the real world.

[Sinister Intents]

I would say that I'm an anarcho communist with leanings towards Marxism, I would have to say a lot like what Red Rose has said. Cellphone posts suck btw

[audiored]

Great to see so many libertarian Marxist / left communists.

[BIXX]

I would say that I'm an anarcho communist with leanings towards Marxism, I would have to say a lot like what Red Rose has said. Cellphone posts suck btw


They really do.

Personally I do accept certain parts of Marxist analysis. But only a bit. Mainly using dialectics as a form of presentation.

I was influenced by Kropotkin, Bakunin, Marx, initially. But now I lean more towards Novatore, Landstreicher (which reminds me to respond to that post by TGDU), Bruno Filippi, and a bunch of post-leftists in general. Stirner's "The Ego and Its Own" is particularly good IMO.

I spend more time looking into my own thoughts than reading others, but there are a few folks who I wanna start reading more of.

Post-left individualist anarchist.

[Wonton Carter]

Marxist-Leninist. I find the others dogmatic. I think a socialist state should be strong enough to keep the bourgeois from rising again to take control, and satisfy the needs of the proletariat, who will have a strong say in the system.

[IBleedRed]

I don't understand what anarchists mean when they say that they "reject Marx". Do you mean you reject Marxian economic analysis? i.e. the antagonism between labor and capital, the sources of crises, et cetera?

What's your empirical foundation?

[spiritof56]

I'm of the Ultra-Left persuasion. Read "Eclipse and Re-Emergence of the Communist Movement" by Gilles Dauve and you'll find out why

[reb]

It's a big problem, I agree, but we have to still be willing to talk about it.

It is not a problem. To posit that it is a problem takes the focus out of the class struggle and the proletariat acting as a class into the sphere of petty ideological struggles in petty parties and tendencies. Communism is not an ideology.


Those tendencies that taint the face of socialism with dogma directly benefit capitalism. Besides, in reality what have they actually achieved that is significant? Whatever though, those tendencies are tiny sects in the real world.

Yeah, those tendencies that try to claim the soviet union was anything other than capitalism really to give socialism a bad image. And what have they achieved? Nothing, none of these places exist as "actually existing socialist states" anymore and are all regular neo-liberal capitalist states. It's like they don't even live in the real world and have a coherent theory to explain any of this transition with resort to word mangling and idealism.


Marxist-Leninist. I find the others dogmatic. I think a socialist state should be strong enough to keep the bourgeois from rising again to take control, and satisfy the needs of the proletariat, who will have a strong say in the system.

I actually think that instead of you finding other tendencies too dogmatic, of which I can only assume those with which you think follow the ideas of Marx too exactly, you mean that you haven't left a bourgeois mindset.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Piracy is my tendency and booty be me motivation. Yehargh.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQB7fq4q5Z7mqUHVEhTDv397Nu3Tr8br SuELvH5Nwypz3l5qM229Q

[CrveniTalas]

I consider myself a socialist; a revolutionary one because the transition from a capitalist mode of production to a socialist one is in-itself a revolution. Therefore, I am no social-democrat. I fully agree with the Marxist conception of history and social development, i.e. the class division and struggle. Lenin continued and built upon the ideas of Marx and Engels, especially in the realm of organizational structure and work. I do not agree with Trotsky's theory about the permanent revolution, although much of his criticism of Stalin and the post-Lenin developments in the country are on point. I agree with the need for a revolutionary vanguard and cadre party because no, not everyone is qualified or entitled to lead.

[boiler]

I am a Socialist Republican and a Maoist, because the only way the people in my country as well as the people of the world will be truly free is by rid the world of imperialism and creating a world wide communist society.

[AnaRchic]

I'm an Anarchist, without adjectives. I believe that as human beings we are fundamentally free by nature, and that this freedom to choose and to act is the very essence of human life. Consequently I oppose all coercive authority and institutional hierarchy, as these things constrain and seek to destroy our freedom.

I am an individualist in that the individual is my primary unit of analysis, though i certainly recognize the existence of class and class struggle. I value individual freedom above all else, and therefor desire a society free of coercive authority.

I'm a communist because I believe that the anarchist-communist model of society would create the conditions allowing for the maximization of individual freedom through the bonds of solidarity.

I am far from a Marxist, rejecting dialectical and historical materialism as well as most everything else spawning from the authoritarian socialist tradition.

I believe all anarchists of every kind should come together in a powerful, non-sectarian and revolutionary anti-authoritarian movement, and that this alone can pave the way for the change in consciousness necessary for the self-emancipation of the oppressed.

[Quail]

I often refer to myself as a libertarian communist rather than an anarchist communist, because although I am primarily inspired by anarchism I am also influenced by Marxist thought. I certainly have a fair amount of common ground with certain Marxists, so I think it can be counterproductive to emphasise minor disagreements instead of recognising that there is a lot of potential for working together.

I also define my politics as anarcha-feminist, and I tend to use that label more when I feel that there is a problem with how seriously various forms of oppression are taken (or of course, when I'm organising as a feminist). There are a lot of people on the left and in the anarchist movement who don't take the struggles of women, LGBT people and other marginalised groups anywhere near as seriously as they should, so in the face of that I think it's important to visibly oppose that perspective because it's not only harmful to people in marginalised groups who are already involved with the movement, but to the movement itself. If the anarchist movement doesn't take the struggles of marginalised groups seriously, then it is doomed to replicate the structures of oppression in wider society and alienate the very people who need it the most.

Anyway, that's a bit of a ramble so I'll stop now.

[IBleedRed]

I often refer to myself as a libertarian communist rather than an anarchist communist, because although I am primarily inspired by anarchism I am also influenced by Marxist thought. I certainly have a fair amount of common ground with certain Marxists, so I think it can be counterproductive to emphasise minor disagreements instead of recognising that there is a lot of potential for working together.

I also define my politics as anarcha-feminist, and I tend to use that label more when I feel that there is a problem with how seriously various forms of oppression are taken (or of course, when I'm organising as a feminist). There are a lot of people on the left and in the anarchist movement who don't take the struggles of women, LGBT people and other marginalised groups anywhere near as seriously as they should, so in the face of that I think it's important to visibly oppose that perspective because it's not only harmful to people in marginalised groups who are already involved with the movement, but to the movement itself. If the anarchist movement doesn't take the struggles of marginalised groups seriously, then it is doomed to replicate the structures of oppression in wider society and alienate the very people who need it the most.

Anyway, that's a bit of a ramble so I'll stop now.

Interesting post. I think I'm guilty of what you're talking about sometimes, mostly because I focus so extensively on economic struggles (wages, pensions, working conditions, etc) and not so much on social issues. Of course, social issues are not ultimately separate from the economic mode of production, but in the short-term I focus more on workers' struggles.


Since you said you disagree with Marxists, I'd be very interested and grateful if you could give a response to my post #28

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

I guess I'm a Trotskyist who sypathizes with left communists and anarcho-communists. I don't agree with some of the stuff the Bolsheviks did so I guess that's a bit of left communism right there.

To me, the main tenets of Trotskyism seem like very sensible positions for a communist to hold. I do, however, consider myself somewhat non-doctriniare because I think different circumstances require different measures and analyses.

[Quail]

Since you said you disagree with Marxists, I'd be very interested and grateful if you could give a response to my post #28

I don't "reject Marx" and I don't know if you will find many (social) anarchists who do. Regarding disagreements that I have with some Marxists, it obviously depends on the tendency/organisation.

[Marxaveli]

I consider myself a non-doctrinaire communist, although my politics most closely align with that of the Orthodox Marxists and Impossiblists. I consider Marxism to be scientific, and to be the most advanced and useful framework for understanding the historical development of human affairs and the relationships of which they consist.

[Geiseric]

I joined the least psychotic, delusional, flip flopping organization I found, which contains actual organizers who are working as we speak to mobilize the working class in my area.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

I am a Socialist Republican and a Maoist, because the only way the people in my country as well as the people of the world will be truly free is by rid the world of imperialism and creating a world wide communist society.


I've been interested in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism for a while now:)! Tell me a bit about the tendency in a nutshell. I also ave one question: what's your personal opinion, and the general Maoist opinion, of Stalin?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'm a Trotskyist because it is most logical to me. It is the tendency that made the most sense to me. I was attracted to it due to both the fact that it was anti-Stalinist, offering an understanding of the nature of Stalinism and why and how it formed through Marxism, and for the strategies, tactics, and principles it espoused by remaing true to Marx, Lenin, and to Bolshevism.

[AmilcarCabral]

The big problem I see with many radical leftists is that they do not take into consideration for predicting a revolutionary communist situation a very important aspect,which is the personal life of the oppressed and the pain they feel every day which blocks any motivation, any inspiration to join a socialist labor party, and to be hardcore pro-active supporter of a leftist revolution in America. And because of that they think that workers and all poor people of the world will mechanically sooner or later support all leftist parties and push for a global leftist revolution

Even Karl Marx suffered a lot of poverty and pain in his personal life, because he didn't have enough heating in London, England where he lived. Watch this video by this philosophy professor on personal life of Karl Marx and how he himself suffered a lot of poverty and economic limitations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYyVPSshT2o



vYyVPSshT2o




.




I don't understand what anarchists mean when they say that they "reject Marx". Do you mean you reject Marxian economic analysis? i.e. the antagonism between labor and capital, the sources of crises, et cetera?

What's your empirical foundation?

[A Psychological Symphony]

Here comes the shitstorm, but I'm essentially a buddhist-Anarchist. There can be no perfect state in the world, therefor the only solution is to have no state.

To quote Wikipedia because I'm lazy:

"...Both the state and capitalism generate oppression and, therefore, suffering. The former, the state, is an institution that frames the desire for power, and the latter, capitalism, the desire for material wealth. Trying to control other human beings, in the view of Buddhist anarchists, will only cause them to suffer, and ultimately causes suffering for those who try to control. Trying to hold on to and accumulate material wealth, likewise, increases suffering for the capitalist and those they do business with..."

While I am by no means a die hard buddhist, or even a firm believer in the eightfold path at this time, I do think that Buddhism has great fundamentals. I would never try and push these beliefs on others, but Buddhism is extremely applicable to Anarchism.

[Future]

Here comes the shitstorm, but I'm essentially a buddhist-Anarchist.

No shitstorm from my end. I am an atheist and anti-theist, so I totally reject the supernatural claims of Buddhism, but I actually like quite a few aspects of Buddhist philosophy.

Anyway, I call myself a Libertarian Socialist. But to get more specific, I would say I'm an Anarcho-communist/syndicalist.

[TiberiusGracchus]

What's your tendency, and why?

I still don't know. I'm a member of an group that have members that identify as maoists, Third Period ML and others with a background in syndicalist and council communist oriented groups, etc. We don't however use any such labels except being marxists and communists.

What I like about our group is...

* We try to be non-dogmatic, we don't postion ourselves as being for or against a certain ideology or historical person (i.e. Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha etc) but rather try to learn from history.

* We follow democratic centralism and make it work by giving every member responsibilities and having every member study political theory in circles. Every member should not just be formally equal in the organization but also actually capable of taking an informed stanced on political and organisatorical questions raised within the organization.

* We are marxist in the sense of scientific revolutionary socialists. We don't just have opinons about things, we try to examine and evaluate all our positions critically and scientifically, with regards to the need of a revolutionary mass proletarian movement.

* We are serious about the revolution. We are not reformists appealing for a better order but 100% revolutionaries doing whatever we can do to further a proletarian mass movement capable of seizing power from the state. Even though we are still far from the revolutionary situation we must prepare for it by learning clandestine organizing.

* We are anti-imperialists, feminists and anti-racists. We are anti-populists in the sense that we would never appeal to the backwardness of the working class in order to gain support. We only appeal to the progressive and revolutionary aspects of the proletariat. And as an organization we don't focus on issues that we might think positive and important, but that we don't think furthers the revolutionary cause in any significant way. Our organizational energy are to be put where it's most important for the revolution.

* We are clear about being anti-state, anti-police, anti bourgeoise order. But we are not for chaos, we are for proletarian, democratic dual power.



All these things I agree with. But I also have opinons that are as of yet my own personal values. For example I believe that the revolutionary movement needs also to be a spiritual movement. Not in the sense of being religious (I'm myself an atheist materialist) but in the sense of being deeply ethical, virtuous and loving. Many communists would claim that if we revolutionize society, then people will become more fulfiled and live better lives. I certainly believe this is true but that in reality the "spiritual" and social revolutions must be simultaneous. Without the discipline, strenght and sound judgement provided by "spiritual" labour I don't think we would succeed in transforming society. For example I think that many revolutionary movements develop a black and white moral prespective where we are the good guys because we fight for the good cause, while the agents of the state and the capitalist system are the bad guys because they fight to protect a foul order. And this I think tend to lead to quite nasty and self-righteous lack of criticism of the morality of your own political acts. Don't get me wrong, of course revolutionaries might be right in killing our enemies, but we must take responsibility for what feelings and dispositions we promote in people: if we further hate and destructive sentiments and repress ethical and humanist values for the cause of the revolution, then we are likely to drown both ourselves and the revolution in the abyss.




TL;DR: Spiritual pseudo-christian autonomist, democratic clandestine marxist-leninist. :lol:

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Can someone explain if there is a dichotomy between libertarian/authoritarian socialism/marxism?And if there is what are their differences.Anyway i consider myself to be influenced by anarchists and by Marx so I guess I am an Anarcho-Communist.

[Q]

I'm inclined to simply call myself a communist, both to 'normal' workers and to far-leftists alike. But if pressed, I'd describe myself as an "orthodox Marxist in the Second International sense of the word, but updated to the 21st century" meaning that I'm all for mass parties (actually, party-movements, as I strive towards a politicised movement that is the political working class, a large multitude of all kinds of organisations that turn around a communist political core) but don't think we can simply take over the state for all kinds of reasons that are inherent to a state apparatus (and indeed a global hierarchy of such apparatuses) that works in favour of minority rule. Instead, we need to take up the battle-cry of democracy again, first of all by destroying the notion that elections have anything to do with it.

But since that is kind of a mouth full, I'll generally keep it at 'communist' :)

[Q]

Can someone explain if there is a dichotomy between libertarian/authoritarian socialism/marxism?And if there is what are their differences.Anyway i consider myself to be influenced by anarchists and by Marx so I guess I am an Anarcho-Communist.
Three main historical events:

1. Marx and Bakunin got in a major fight after the Parisian Commune of 1871 over the way forward for the First International, which ended up in wounding up that organisation.
2. Not wanting to repeat that, and using the argument that anarchists rejected parliamentary work as a pretext (and because that kinda was an important part of the strategy of the SI), the anarchists were expelled from the Second International very early on.
3. The anarchists broke with the events in the USSR very early on. The happenings with Makhno in the Ukraine and Kronstadt were major happenings.

That doesn't mean I don't see anarchists as comrades. Even stronger: I think the strategy succinctly given in my previous post is largely compatible with what anarchists want. Although I still disagree with the anarchist end goal of achieving a 'federation of communes' which, due to the inequality of resources, has a high chance of recreating class society.

[Geiseric]

Most anarchists supported lenin. The SRs, which Makhno's followers such as Petrichenko was halfway part of, were the main "leftist" enemies of the Soviets.

[renalenin]

I am Marxist Leninist. Main reason is because I think the capitalist relations of production cannot be overcome until the working class and its allies control the state and the organs of the state. This is a combination of Marx and Lenin, hence ML. But it is sad that too many Communist Parties are now revisionist and do not want to overthrow capitalism.:(

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

I still don't know. I'm a member of an group that have members that identify as maoists, Third Period ML and others with a background in syndicalist and council communist oriented groups, etc. We don't however use any such labels except being marxists and communists.

What I like about our group is...

* We try to be non-dogmatic, we don't postion ourselves as being for or against a certain ideology or historical person (i.e. Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Hoxha etc) but rather try to learn from history.

* We follow democratic centralism and make it work by giving every member responsibilities and having every member study political theory in circles. Every member should not just be formally equal in the organization but also actually capable of taking an informed stanced on political and organisatorical questions raised within the organization.

* We are marxist in the sense of scientific revolutionary socialists. We don't just have opinons about things, we try to examine and evaluate all our positions critically and scientifically, with regards to the need of a revolutionary mass proletarian movement.

* We are serious about the revolution. We are not reformists appealing for a better order but 100% revolutionaries doing whatever we can do to further a proletarian mass movement capable of seizing power from the state. Even though we are still far from the revolutionary situation we must prepare for it by learning clandestine organizing.

* We are anti-imperialists, feminists and anti-racists. We are anti-populists in the sense that we would never appeal to the backwardness of the working class in order to gain support. We only appeal to the progressive and revolutionary aspects of the proletariat. And as an organization we don't focus on issues that we might think positive and important, but that we don't think furthers the revolutionary cause in any significant way. Our organizational energy are to be put where it's most important for the revolution.

* We are clear about being anti-state, anti-police, anti bourgeoise order. But we are not for chaos, we are for proletarian, democratic dual power.



All these things I agree with. But I also have opinons that are as of yet my own personal values. For example I believe that the revolutionary movement needs also to be a spiritual movement. Not in the sense of being religious (I'm myself an atheist materialist) but in the sense of being deeply ethical, virtuous and loving. Many communists would claim that if we revolutionize society, then people will become more fulfiled and live better lives. I certainly believe this is true but that in reality the "spiritual" and social revolutions must be simultaneous. Without the discipline, strenght and sound judgement provided by "spiritual" labour I don't think we would succeed in transforming society. For example I think that many revolutionary movements develop a black and white moral prespective where we are the good guys because we fight for the good cause, while the agents of the state and the capitalist system are the bad guys because they fight to protect a foul order. And this I think tend to lead to quite nasty and self-righteous lack of criticism of the morality of your own political acts. Don't get me wrong, of course revolutionaries might be right in killing our enemies, but we must take responsibility for what feelings and dispositions we promote in people: if we further hate and destructive sentiments and repress ethical and humanist values for the cause of the revolution, then we are likely to drown both ourselves and the revolution in the abyss.




TL;DR: Spiritual pseudo-christian autonomist, democratic clandestine marxist-leninist. :lol:

Sounds like a great group! What's it called?

[boiler]

I've been interested in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism for a while now:)! Tell me a bit about the tendency in a nutshell. I also ave one question: what's your personal opinion, and the general Maoist opinion, of Stalin?

The main points of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism are, People's War military strategy, Mass Line, identifying contradictions and handling them, New Democratic Revolution and the Cultural Revolution

Maoist's have different opinion's on Stalin. My opinion in a nut shell is under his leadership there were many achievements and many errors made. I think the executions in the purges were wrong, I think exiling and then having Trotsky assassinated was wrong. Democratic centralism wasn't done right. I think it was difficult struggle Stalin faced with but over all he stuck by Marxism-Leninism. Defended the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, helped independence struggles else where in the world. I think he done more good than bad.

PS ill explain Marxism-Leninism-Maoism better if you want, im just in a rush here at the minute lol

[Sinister Intents]

Most anarchists supported lenin. The SRs, which Makhno's followers such as Petrichenko was halfway part of, were the main "leftist" enemies of the Soviets.

What's your source for anarchists supporting Vladimir Lenin? I find this interesting, I'm an anarchist and personally I like some of Lenin's writings, particularly State and Revolution

[Geiseric]

What's your source for anarchists supporting Vladimir Lenin? I find this interesting, I'm an anarchist and personally I like some of Lenin's writings, particularly State and Revolution

kropotkin supported the Bolsheviks openly for a long time. He and most other anarchists took an unprincipled flip flop when grain seizures were opposed by the remnants of the SR party, who we're the actual ones behind Kronstadt years later.

[Brutus]

kropotkin supported the Bolsheviks openly for a long time. He took an unprincipled flip flop when grain seizures were opposed by the remnants of the SR party, who we're the actual ones behind Kronstadt.

You've given one anarchist as an example, and no sources. You're failing to convince me that "most anarchists supported Lenin"

[Comrade Jacob]

The main points of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism are, People's War military strategy, Mass Line, identifying contradictions and handling them, New Democratic Revolution and the Cultural Revolution

Maoist's have different opinion's on Stalin. My opinion in a nut shell is under his leadership there were many achievements and many errors made. I think the executions in the purges were wrong, I think exiling and then having Trotsky assassinated was wrong. Democratic centralism wasn't done right. I think it was difficult struggle Stalin faced with but over all he stuck by Marxism-Leninism. Defended the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, helped independence struggles else where in the world. I think he done more good than bad.

PS ill explain Marxism-Leninism-Maoism better if you want, im just in a rush here at the minute lol

This is a good sum-up. The simple description above is why I am a Maoist.

[La Guaneña]

What's your source for anarchists supporting Vladimir Lenin? I find this interesting, I'm an anarchist and personally I like some of Lenin's writings, particularly State and Revolution

I don't know if many anarchists supported Lenin, but you can look up Victor Serge's Year One of the Russian Revolution, it's a book by an anarchist upholding the bolsheviks.

[Revenant]

Based Leftists and it's quite quiet there so you should join:)
"The youth is the only ones who save us
And who cares if their parents is a hater
We gotta step up to love, have a good day
And go give a hug
Don't be fake for the money
People turn snakes for the money
I found out living was a job."
Lil B, "Damn Life's Hard"

[consuming negativity]

Over the years I've gone back and forth between Marxist-Leninism and anarchist communism. Kinda like a pinball, bouncing from one to the next each time I read something new. At this point I'd say I'm relatively firmly planted in the anarchist communist camp, but that could always change. It has in the past.

As to how I got here, well, that's a really long story based on my pinballing. The most immediate reason that comes to my head is just that I think Lenin was wrong about a lot of different things, and the more I read that he wrote, the more I find it incredibly wanting. I don't think using the state (this one is different, I know) as a means by which to achieve communism is feasible or realistic. Which pretty much cuts off an entire set of tendencies that all seem to hold him in reverence. I'm quite partial to Engels, and I'm quite partial to Kropotkin and Goldman as well. What they say makes the most sense, and I don't have to waste hours poring over articles about 1920s Russia in order to understand where they're coming from. Plus, at least in my experience, the anarchists seem quite a bit more numerous and organized than the other general tendencies.

[Diirez]

I like to call myself a mixture of Trotskyism and (if you consider it a tendency) Luxemburgism.

Trotskyism because I've always found Trotsky and Lenin admirable and amazing. Trotskyism is the first tendency I was exposed to and only tendency that has made sense to me. However, I also find the things Rosa Luxemburg wrote about and theorized to be logical and right.

[Geiseric]

You've given one anarchist as an example, and no sources. You're failing to convince me that "most anarchists supported Lenin"

They supported the seizure of power by the working class, so de facto they supported the Bolsheviks. Makhno was himself armed at the begining by the Bolsheviks. His supporters politics were closer to the left SRs on top of the material aid they received, and they for no reason showed antagonism towards the red army.

[Future]

I forgot to explain why I subscribe to what I subscribe to, so I'll do that now.

Basically, I consider myself a revolutionary Socialist and Anarchist, advocating for the international revolutionary overthrow of all illegitimate authority and social hierarchy (primarily the hierarchical state and capitalism) in favor of an anarcho-communist/syndicalist society using the various principles of Libertarian Socialism: self management, direct democracy, decentralized and autonomous federated communities and workers' councils (syndicates), etc. I consider myself a Libertarian Marxist and left/Council Communist in the tradition of Antonie Pannekoek, as well as some aspects of De Leonism - and most prominently, as a social Anarchist in the tradition of Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Errico Malatesta, Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky, and so on. I am sympathetic to both Anarcho-syndicalism and non-syndicalist revolutionary strategies, such as some forms of Insurrectionalism.

I support Marx's understanding of class and history, but even more importantly, the libertarian/anarchist interpretation and critique of Marxism (historical materialism and anti-authoritarianism working in tandem as justifications for communism).


I was and still kind of am unsure how to answer this question, but I will say that I have a Marxist conception of history, power and class, and that I favor revolutionary industrial unionism, anarcho-syndicalism or all-encompassing workers' self-management in a delegative democracy (i.e. any system where the proletariat is organized in decentralized autonomous units like councils or unions) as possible roads to (anarcho-)communism. I simply want a world where people are as unburdened by hierarchy and as free from artificially enforced want as possible, while no one starves to death or dies of diseases that could have been cured.

This is pretty much exactly how I feel about the matter and you said it well.


I call myself a libertarian Marxist or a Marxian anarcho-communist because I'm influenced by both Marxism and some forms of anarchism.

Lol, I love that term. Marxian anarcho-communist. I'm going to start using that. Like you, I am heavily influenced by both Marxism and anarchist communism.


I would say that I'm an anarcho communist with leanings towards Marxism

That's why I like the term "libertarian Marxism". I fundamentally believe that a libertarian critique of Marxism is completely compatible with Bakunist-style Anarchism.


I am an individualist in that the individual is my primary unit of analysis, though i certainly recognize the existence of class and class struggle. I value individual freedom above all else, and therefor desire a society free of coercive authority.


I'm a communist because I believe that the anarchist-communist model of society would create the conditions allowing for the maximization of individual freedom through the bonds of solidarity.


I think this is ultimately how all socialist anarchists feel. It's a grave mistake and slander when the enemies of socialism claim that we have no respect for individualism.

"I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation." - Mikhail Bakunin


I often refer to myself as a libertarian communist rather than an anarchist communist, because although I am primarily inspired by anarchism I am also influenced by Marxist thought. I certainly have a fair amount of common ground with certain Marxists, so I think it can be counterproductive to emphasise minor disagreements instead of recognising that there is a lot of potential for working together.

Agreed. Libertarian Marxism and social Anarchism's ultimate differences are too small to get too worked up over. Related variations over how exactly to operate pre and post revolution, minor theoretical differences over decentralized organization, and different, yet often mutually inclusive methodological approaches to the issues are nothing to get too worked up about. Both want a non-hierarchical, anti-authoritarian, communist society and both want to achieve this through revolutionary direct action. One approaches the matter from an anti-authoritarian ethical perspective and the other approaches it from an historical/scientific perspective. I don't see any reason why these can't work together as a multi-faceted and devastating framework against capitalism and authority.


I'm a Trotskyist because it is most logical to me. It is the tendency that made the most sense to me. I was attracted to it due to both the fact that it was anti-Stalinist, offering an understanding of the nature of Stalinism and why and how it formed through Marxism, and for the strategies, tactics, and principles it espoused by remaing true to Marx, Lenin, and to Bolshevism.

I actually used to be a Trotskyist years ago and I still have some respect for it. Many aspects of modern Trotskyism are not that incompatible with libertarian communist tendencies, but I ultimately had to leave the tendency after I started studying the anarchist traditions. It just made more sense to me and Trotskyism just became too authoritarian in its methods and theory for me over time.


I'm quite partial to Engels, and I'm quite partial to Kropotkin and Goldman as well. What they say makes the most sense, and I don't have to waste hours poring over articles about 1920s Russia in order to understand where they're coming from. Plus, at least in my experience, the anarchists seem quite a bit more numerous and organized than the other general tendencies.

Kropotkin and Goldman are both amazing theorists that really influenced me. Their work really helped to take me from Trotskyism to anarcho-communism.

[Dodo]

Tendencies tend to be stupid and obsolete. You are either a Marxist or not. Marxism has its method of historical-political-economic-social analysis. The analysis leads to rather obvious observations regarding the nature of the problem and how it can change.

Most tendencies are products of political debates in history on how to do them and are obselete. A better question would be to find out what "tendencies" are true continuation of Marxist analysis and incorporate that into the larger framework as conditions constantly change.

It really screws Marxist movements a lot. I feel close to Trotsky but I would not exactly say I am a "Trotskyist.

[G4b3n]

I don't understand what anarchists mean when they say that they "reject Marx". Do you mean you reject Marxian economic analysis? i.e. the antagonism between labor and capital, the sources of crises, et cetera?

What's your empirical foundation?

I have never met an anarchist who rejected Marxism in its entirety. If you can find literally nothing to salvage from Marx, then you are probably not an anarchist.

[argeiphontes]

Libertarian Market Socialism, a Rosemary's Baby fathered by David Schweickart and Noam Chomsky. Mwah hah hah hah hah hah hah... cough...

[A Psychological Symphony]

Tendencies tend to be stupid and obsolete. You are either a Marxist or not. Marxism has its method of historical-political-economic-social analysis. The analysis leads to rather obvious observations regarding the nature of the problem and how it can change.

Most tendencies are products of political debates in history on how to do them and are obselete. A better question would be to find out what "tendencies" are true continuation of Marxist analysis and incorporate that into the larger framework as conditions constantly change.

It really screws Marxist movements a lot. I feel close to Trotsky but I would not exactly say I am a "Trotskyist.

Anarchists and marxist-Leninists have rather large differences in their political beliefs. I don't think you can honestly just lump them in as one-in-the-same Marxists

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Most anarchists supported lenin. The SRs, which Makhno's followers such as Petrichenko was halfway part of, were the main "leftist" enemies of the Soviets.

I don't know if it's possible to measure how many anarchists supported Lenin, but I think we can agree that many well-known anarchists supported him in the beginning. For example, in 1919 shortly after the October Revolution, Alexander Berkman declared:


From now on, we are all one—one in the sacred work of the Revolution. Socialists or anarchists—our theoretical differences are left behind. We are all revolutionists now."(Source: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/berkman/bmyth/bmch2.html)

He became disillusioned with Russia later on because of Bolshevik suppression of anarchist thought, but at first, he supported Lenin wholeheatedly.

[Geiseric]

I don't know if it's possible to measure how many anarchists supported Lenin, but I think we can agree that many well-known anarchists supported him in the beginning. For example, in 1919 shortly after the October Revolution, Alexander Berkman declared:

(Source: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/berkman/bmyth/bmch2.html)

He became disillusioned with Russia later on because of Bolshevik suppression of anarchist thought, but at first, he supported Lenin wholeheatedly.

Aren't they not actually anarchists if they supported a workers state? I was always confused about this

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (Left Wing)

Why: A mixture of reasons relating primarily to pragmatism, theoretical understanding, and historical precedent. I hold a deep appreciation for the works and contributions of Mao Tsetung; his work on the Mass Line, Protracted Peoples' War, New Democracy, Contradiction (Dialectics), and understanding of allowing Marxism to thrive in a specific social condition and how it relates to the moment were big influences. It seemed like a quaint middle ground between dogmatism and ultra-leftism. In addition, I was inspired by the modern Maoist movements; to see how they continued the legacy and practice of the tendency into the current epoch over all corners of the world was vital as well as it connoted a linking of the masses.

This being said I am of the Left Wing, not the Right-Wing. As such I do not support a universal theory of protracted peoples' war and tend not to take Mao's utterances as holy script. He was a human being who made great mistakes and held deep-seated social oriented reaction. Revolutionary China (under his leadership) had many problems which at times were alleviated by policies inspired by him while at others the problems were further ingrained because of malpractice in the Marxist dialect. Likewise, I try to avoid terms like Revisionist for those who truly espouse such ideas; some Right-Wing Maoists employ the term liberally and as a result many comrades are treated like foes. An additional facet of this specific sub-tendency is my focus on re-groupment and reorganizing communist theory and practice for the 21st century, an undertaking that while every Leftist sect has undertaken in its own way, I am more interested in than your average Leftist.

As far as theories such as Socialism in One Country and Permanent Revolution are concerned... I do think I could care less. Depending on your definition of socialism, communism, Marxism (ect) these theories are either a binary or stark and mellow. I believe they are two sides of the same coin. Usually I will refer to "Socialist Construction" rather than socialism (in the sense of it achieved) as I think it is a more accurate term then saying a country was "socialist" or "Capitalist". With such a divergence in opinion on what constitutes socialism to begin with, I simply see this lingual route as a truer reflection of the reality.

In addition, I describe myself as a Pan-Leftist. This is due to my belief that no revolution in the imperialist centers will occur without all Leftist sects cooperating together, without interpersonal antagonisms becoming hostile. Simply said, to say that a revolution will happen in the first world (in today's world) with only one tendency leading the charge, and then to hold onto to power or convince the wider society to follow their example, is absurd. The revolution in America will be violent beyond reckoning. A socialist/anarchistic power on the incline under such auspices would be fighting for its life in the face of counterrevolutionary tides. All Leftist will need to work together (in some manner) to overcome this bulwark.

Also why I am a Pan-Leftist: I have my personal beliefs in regards to theory and these beliefs can be very poignant at times, most of the while I honestly only care about these theoretical differences in a very superficial manner. As far as I am concerned if you are fighting for a classless, money-less society while advocating revolutionary means to attain this society, than you are a comrade of mine (give or take some potential contradictions).

I guess that is my views in a nutshell. If you want something clarified please send me a PM.

[Ritzy Cat]

marxist

[nor-commie]

A kind of Stalinist Marxist-Leninist, I don't want to be associated to Stalin for his techniques, but he was practising true Marxism which is why I support his politic, but not he's leadership.

[Yuppie Grinder]

My experiences with communism are all through reading things, so there's no real point in taking a lot of pride in a super specific "tendency". Kids on here are die hard Maoists one week and sworn Anarcho-Somethingorothers the next. I don't get the point.
If I had to box myself in I would say I am an ultra-left Marxist who cares about proletarian internationalism, actual communism (not capitalist states with red flags), and staying based everyday.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I am an Anarcho-communist. I believe only the people themselves are able to decide what's right for them. Being AnCom also means i believe we can accomplish a just and equal society by forming communes. (my ideology is much larger than that, for instance i use Marx' economics and syndicalist unionising, but they are, in my believes, not the answer)


why does the left fragment into so many tendencies and sects?

And that's where you get your answer. We are deeply fragmented, because there is not one specific way to get to full communism. Anarchists will never use vanguardism, nor will Leninists "let the people run free unguided" (sorry, not supposed to be cocky or anything).
Even the Marxists are divided into fractions who, in ideology, battle each other.

That's the reason why there will never be leftist unity until after the revolution.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Revolutionary - Marxism, because a) I am for a social overthrow of the existing conditions and b) the intrinsic doctrine laid of Marx and Engels makes the most sense on how to get beyond this society.

[Comrade #138672]

I have set my primary tendency as revolutionary Marxism, but in reality I also tend more or less towards Trotskyism, left communism and Bordigism. Obviously these tendencies are more or less in contradiction with each other, so as time progresses, this is bound to change. I am still learning.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

If I had to say where I fall, it would be anarchist / anarchist-communist

[Comrade #138672]

Why is there a distinction between anarchism and anarcho-communism? Aren't they the same thing? I mean, the goal of anarchism is communism, so anarchism should always be anarcho-communism in order to qualify as anarchism.

[freecommunist]

Many aspects of modern Trotskyism are not that incompatible with libertarian communist tendencies

Out of interest what do you find compatible?

[Thirsty Crow]

Why is there a distinction between anarchism and anarcho-communism? Aren't they the same thing? I mean, the goal of anarchism is communism, so anarchism should always be anarcho-communism in order to qualify as anarchism.
I believe the distinction has to do with the historical difference between so called collectivists and communists in the anarchist current.

The former, in short, projected a liberated society which would still function on the basis of the wage, whereas the latter advocates the elimination of wage labor and free access.

[Dodo]

Anarchists and marxist-Leninists have rather large differences in their political beliefs. I don't think you can honestly just lump them in as one-in-the-same Marxists

Not in their political beliefs but in their "means" to achieve it. Both go for a classless society where oppression and all forms of discrimination are vanishing. Society where the individual is free and not bound to anything but his/her will.
Lenin's analysis and contributions are valuable. Perhaps his most important analysis however is that a Marxist should always analyze the current situation for revolutionary action.
Anarchists and Marxists had trouble in the 19th century when there was no consensus on how the transition would occur and what would happen with the state.
Marxists do not have to follow Marx's political ideas as if its a religion, Marxism is the methodology.
Though I would not say the debate of role of state is over, I dont think revolutionaries have the luxury of dividing so much on things that have not happened.

The goal is to lift contradictions in the society and oppression. Anyone who drifts away from that, such as the Stalinists are clearly excited-revolutioanry high school kids who likes everything red who do not really know much about Marxism.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Aren't they not actually anarchists if they supported a workers state? I was always confused about this

I suppose that they saw themselves as socialists first and anarchists second. Even if they didn't like Bolshevik tactics, they did like their goals.

[human strike]

Ultra-left is best left, but post-left is bestest.

I don't know if that's true, I just wanted to make a rhyme out of it.

[thc]

Not in their political beliefs but in their "means" to achieve it. Both go for a classless society where oppression and all forms of discrimination are vanishing. Society where the individual is free and not bound to anything but his/her will.
Lenin's analysis and contributions are valuable. Perhaps his most important analysis however is that a Marxist should always analyze the current situation for revolutionary action.
Anarchists and Marxists had trouble in the 19th century when there was no consensus on how the transition would occur and what would happen with the state.
Marxists do not have to follow Marx's political ideas as if its a religion, Marxism is the methodology.
Though I would not say the debate of role of state is over, I dont think revolutionaries have the luxury of dividing so much on things that have not happened.

The goal is to lift contradictions in the society and oppression. Anyone who drifts away from that, such as the Stalinists are clearly excited-revolutioanry high school kids who likes everything red who do not really know much about Marxism.

I recommend you read some of Stalin's works. From Stalin's "Dialectical and Historical Materialism,"

"Further, if development proceeds by way of the disclosure of internal contradictions, by way of collisions between opposite forces on the basis of these contradictions and so as to overcome these contradictions, then it is clear that the class struggle of the proletariat is a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon...Hence, we must not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to check the class struggle but carry it to its conclusion."

[Thirsty Crow]

I recommend you read some of Stalin's works. From Stalin's "Dialectical and Historical Materialism,"

"Further, if development proceeds by way of the disclosure of internal contradictions, by way of collisions between opposite forces on the basis of these contradictions and so as to overcome these contradictions, then it is clear that the class struggle of the proletariat is a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon...Hence, we must not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to check the class struggle but carry it to its conclusion."
What does this mean, however?

Nothing more than a frank statement of idealism. First, you cook up the "fact" that there is a mysterious law of all motion and change which is suspiciously much like some arch-idealists had to say about the absolute, but proceed to ground it in "matter", and voila - it is inevitable.

I wonder what's gonna happen to that universal law of motion and change one worldwide communism is established.

And just to anticipate some remarks - no I do not deny that "we must not try to check class struggle".

[Dodo]

I recommend you read some of Stalin's works. From Stalin's "Dialectical and Historical Materialism,"

"Further, if development proceeds by way of the disclosure of internal contradictions, by way of collisions between opposite forces on the basis of these contradictions and so as to overcome these contradictions, then it is clear that the class struggle of the proletariat is a quite natural and inevitable phenomenon...Hence, we must not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to check the class struggle but carry it to its conclusion."

I did. Have not really came across a theory of sorts that is new. Stalinism does not refer to his works anyways, Stalinism refers to policies and the form of governing he created. Stalin considered himself a Marixst-Leninist as far as I know.

[CamusStyle]

As this is my first post, I will try to hide my sarcastic and eccentic manner of speech for the time being!:grin:
Ever since I can remember getting evolved into politics I was always a leftist. At first I had some general thoughts about it (pacifism, internationalism, more equality and I loathed bigotry) but as I grew and studied in my teen years I was convinced by Marxism-Leninism about the method to abolish a capitalist society, I shared its values and goals,too. As the years went by, and disheartened by the lukewarm resistance to the attack launched by the burgeoise here in Greece, I started developing a more radical philosophy (ML will call it "left opportunism") that was intensified by the rise of Golden Dawn and the general apathy towards (and even acceptance of) the Neo-Nazis in Greek society-not as a whole of course.
But once again I didn't find what I was looking for. The Trotskyist and Anarchocommunist groups were very much into making declarations and radical statements about fighting, but where it counts, in the Universities, schools, factories and other workplaces, their presence was miserable. And I don't think the case was their lack of mass support, but rather their inabilty and to put it blunt, unwillingness to connect with the people.
I remain a Marxist-not a dogmatic of course, as for example his views on evolutionary sociology are quite wrong according to the new theories- and a Leninist as he embellished Marxist theory according to the rising imperialist stage of capitalist society. I have however my doubts about his theory on party discipline, and I tend to agree with Rosa Luxemburge's stance on this one.
Once again, I greet all sincere and commited revolutionaries here. We've chosen a life of struggle. I hope we make it.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Why is there a distinction between anarchism and anarcho-communism? Aren't they the same thing? I mean, the goal of anarchism is communism, so anarchism should always be anarcho-communism in order to qualify as anarchism.

There is also a distinction between Anarcho-communists and Anarcho-syndicalists.
The former's main strategic path is to form communes and as such we hope to accomplish full communism.
The latter tries it by workers-/workplace syndicates. By organising the workers in the workplace and enforcing production by themselves, they hope to get to full communism.

TBH, i think the truth and the best strategy is a mixture of ancom, ansyn and insurrectionism (which advocates the use of propaganda by tha deed as their main strategy).

So Anarchism is more of an umbrella term for the different tendencies, much like "Marxism" actually.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

There is also a distinction between Anarcho-communists and Anarcho-syndicalists.
The former's main strategic path is to form communes and as such we hope to accomplish full communism.
The latter tries it by workers-/workplace syndicates. By organising the workers in the workplace and enforcing production by themselves, they hope to get to full communism.

TBH, i think the truth and the best strategy is a mixture of ancom, ansyn and insurrectionism (which advocates the use of propaganda by tha deed as their main strategy).

So Anarchism is more of an umbrella term for the different tendencies, much like "Marxism" actually.

Actually the anarchists are the one fighting the neo nazis mostly.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

As this is my first post, I will try to hide my sarcastic and eccentic manner of speech for the time being!:grin:
Ever since I can remember getting evolved into politics I was always a leftist. At first I had some general thoughts about it (pacifism, internationalism, more equality and I loathed bigotry) but as I grew and studied in my teen years I was convinced by Marxism-Leninism about the method to abolish a capitalist society, I shared its values and goals,too. As the years went by, and disheartened by the lukewarm resistance to the attack launched by the burgeoise here in Greece, I started developing a more radical philosophy (ML will call it "left opportunism") that was intensified by the rise of Golden Dawn and the general apathy towards (and even acceptance of) the Neo-Nazis in Greek society-not as a whole of course.
But once again I didn't find what I was looking for. The Trotskyist and Anarchocommunist groups were very much into making declarations and radical statements about fighting, but where it counts, in the Universities, schools, factories and other workplaces, their presence was miserable. And I don't think the case was their lack of mass support, but rather their inabilty and to put it blunt, unwillingness to connect with the people.
I remain a Marxist-not a dogmatic of course, as for example his views on evolutionary sociology are quite wrong according to the new theories- and a Leninist as he embellished Marxist theory according to the rising imperialist stage of capitalist society. I have however my doubts about his theory on party discipline, and I tend to agree with Rosa Luxemburge's stance on this one.
Once again, I greet all sincere and commited revolutionaries here. We've chosen a life of struggle. I hope we make it.

Actually the anarchists are the ones fighting the neo nazis mostly.

[Delenda Carthago]

My tendecy is this right here. (http://inter.kke.gr/en/documents/19thCongress/)

[La Guaneña]

My tendecy is this right here. (http://inter.kke.gr/en/documents/19thCongress/)

The three red letters, simple signature of the greek people?

Is that how it goes?

[Delenda Carthago]

The three red letters, simple signature of the greek people?

Is that how it goes?
Yesiiiir!:)

[SmirkerOfTheWorld]

I usually say Libertarian Socialist, Anarchist or Syndicalist, although I do like simply 'socialist'.

I wouldn't distance myself completely from Marxism, but I haven't read enough marxist thought to really consider to or not to be one...

I think one reason I came to anarchism is because it doesn't have the baggage that Leninism has managed to scoop up over the last 100 or so years...

[Q]

My tendecy is this right here. (http://inter.kke.gr/en/documents/19thCongress/)
Your tendency is the 19th congress of the KKE?

I don't follow.

[Delenda Carthago]

Your tendency is the 19th congress of the KKE?

I don't follow.
Yes. I agree with the analyses and thesis of the programm of the party that was decided in the 19th congress.Something that is based on the foundations of m-l but not as a dead ideology, but given the experience of the worldwide communist movement experience for the last century. Not "m-l" in general, not "communism" in general.

This is why I dont like the term "stalinist party" for KKE. Stalinists and trots are 60 years back. That programm is a thing of the present.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Yes. I agree with the analyses and thesis of the programm of the party that was decided in the 19th congress.Something that is based on the foundations of m-l but not as a dead ideology, but given the experience of the worldwide communist movement experience for the last century. Not "m-l" in general, not "communism" in general.

This is why I dont like the term "stalinist party" for KKE. Stalinists and trots are 60 years back. That programm is a thing of the present.

But the KKE praises the ussr for being example of socialism.How are they not stalinist?

[Delenda Carthago]

But the KKE praises the ussr for being example of socialism.How are they not stalinist?
You really have a vague idea of what consists "stalinism". With your definition, everyone from Lenin to Gorbachov, to Khrushchev, to Soshtakovic,to Trotsky, to Roza Luxemburg and Karl Liebnecht, etc. were stalinists, because they thought of USSR as an example of socialism.

And in case you didnt figured it out yet, I only used people's names that had disagreement with Stalin,with the obvious exception of course.


Btw, you know who else praised USSR of being socialist? The leader of the People's Front army during WWII in Greece(EAM-ELAS), and member of KKE, Aris Velouhiotis. You simply cannot get any more stalinist than him. He reached the peak of it.

Yet, that doesnt stop you from using his name...

[Dialectical Wizard]

I consider myself to be a Marxist/Communist.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Actually the anarchists are the one fighting the neo nazis mostly.

Have you read my comment?

It's like the insect/butterfly thing: Every butterfly is an insect, but not every insect is a butterfly.
Every AnCom or AnSyn is an Anarchist. So which one fights the Neo-nazi's? The AntiFa!

[ArisVelouxiotis]

You really have a vague idea of what consists "stalinism". With your definition, everyone from Lenin to Gorbachov, to Khrushchev, to Soshtakovic,to Trotsky, to Roza Luxemburg and Karl Liebnecht, etc. were stalinists, because they thought of USSR as an example of socialism.

And in case you didnt figured it out yet, I only used people's names that had disagreement with Stalin,with the obvious exception of course.


Btw, you know who else praised USSR of being socialist? The leader of the People's Front army during WWII in Greece(EAM-ELAS), and member of KKE, Aris Velouhiotis. You simply cannot get any more stalinist than him. He reached the peak of it.

Yet, that doesnt stop you from using his name...

Actually no but even if he did.Every communist supported the ussr in the 40s it was the symbol of communism then(even if it wasnt).I dont want to get to a flame war again.Trotsky who was killed by Stalin thought the ussr under stalin was an example of socialism?Good to know

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Whether aris velouxiotis was a stalinist is up to debate.But we are arguing whether kke is stalinist.You know more about kke than I do I hope.So tell me,do you agree that it is stalinist or not?And if not why?

[Delenda Carthago]

Whether aris velouxiotis was a stalinist is up to debate.But we are arguing whether kke is stalinist.You know more about kke than I do I hope.So tell me,do you agree that it is stalinist or not?And if not why?
No, its not a "stalinist" party, whatever that term means.

As I said before "stalinist" is someone that wants to apply (and agrees) with every political descision was made by CPSU and Commintern during the leadership years of Stalin, right? KKE today criticaly rejects many of the political descisions that were made back then.

For example, it is negative to Popular Fronts and values that experience as a negative example of the communist movement.

It is against the descisions that were made post War about the re-introduction of capitalist logics in the socialist economy, something that lead to the opportunistic turn of CCCP and in the end, at its destruction.

It is against the stage theory.

Its also against the descision of the destruction of Commintern.


And above all, most importantly, KKE does not makes political analyses based on periods like "Stalinist", "Kruschevist", "Brezhnievist". It judges with scientific point of view every descision based on the critic of experience. Even the term "leninist" is based mostly on the New Type of Party model, and on the general logic of Lenin, not as a holy sacred ideology that must be transfered to today's descisions no matter what.





Of course, Stalin in general, as well as the construction of socialism up until 1941 and of course the CCCP's contribution on the antifascist struggle are in general valuated as a "plus". But that doesnt mean that on the wrongs you are not going to judge them.

[Delenda Carthago]

To give you an example, if KKE was "stalinist", it would be in a Anti-mnemonioum Front with SYRIZA, ANEL, Democratic Left to make a government as a "stage" before revolution.

Instead, KKE has a stricly anticapitalist line, not willing to collaborate with forces that are against the working class power, and without no "stages" illusions and of course no participation in no capitalist government.

And if you look, you ll see that "stalinists" are accusing KKE of being leftist, sectarian, trotskyist and whatever. I was speaking with an old member that has left the party due to the descisions of the 19th Congress and he was telling me that KKE has influences from... Pannekoek!

[Thirsty Crow]

To give you an example, if KKE was "stalinist", it would be in a Anti-mnemonioum Front with SYRIZA, ANEL, Democratic Left to make a government as a "stage" before revolution.

Instead, KKE has a stricly anticapitalist line, not willing to collaborate with forces that are against the working class power, and without no "stages" illusions and of course no participation in no capitalist government.

And if you look, you ll see that "stalinists" are accusing KKE of being leftist, sectarian, trotskyist and whatever. I was speaking with an old member that has left the party due to the descisions of the 19th Congress and he was telling me that KKE has influences from... Pannekoek!
So, in other words, you take the Popular Front strategy as the core defining characteristic of Stalinism...because Third Period was a fluke, something completely arbitrary, dropped out of the blue sky?

But sure, if you take the actual opportunism evident in completely wild strategic zig zags of historical, actually existing Stalinism, as its defining moment, yeah well maybe KKE should not be deemed Stalinist. It's best to twist terms and concepts until they're made to serve your ends after all, isn't it?

And of course, the opinion from an ex-member arguing...well, bollocks basically, is relevant because...eh s/he was in the party, I suppose.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

No, its not a "stalinist" party, whatever that term means.

As I said before "stalinist" is someone that wants to apply (and agrees) with every political descision was made by CPSU and Commintern during the leadership years of Stalin, right? KKE today criticaly rejects many of the political descisions that were made back then.

For example, it is negative to Popular Fronts and values that experience as a negative example of the communist movement.

It is against the descisions that were made post War about the re-introduction of capitalist logics in the socialist economy, something that lead to the opportunistic turn of CCCP and in the end, at its destruction.

It is against the stage theory.

Its also against the descision of the destruction of Commintern.


And above all, most importantly, KKE does not makes political analyses based on periods like "Stalinist", "Kruschevist", "Brezhnievist". It judges with scientific point of view every descision based on the critic of experience. Even the term "leninist" is based mostly on the New Type of Party model, and on the general logic of Lenin, not as a holy sacred ideology that must be transfered to today's descisions no matter what.





Of course, Stalin in general, as well as the construction of socialism up until 1941 and of course the CCCP's contribution on the antifascist struggle are in general valuated as a "plus". But that doesnt mean that on the wrongs you are not going to judge them.
Thank you for your clarifications.But I have probably not seen any critiques by kke of stalin at least on internet or tv.If you could send me a link I would appreciate it.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

broadly a libertarian communist in theory but heavily influenced by 20th century continental thought/poststructuralism and elements of althusser's structuralism.

i believe that the left still has an unhealthy obsession with leninism and that we need to break from it

[Delenda Carthago]

Thank you for your clarifications.But I have probably not seen any critiques by kke of stalin at least on internet or tv.If you could send me a link I would appreciate it.
Stalin as a person? I just told you that its not the people, its the politics. And I just told you some of the criticisms that KKE applys to the politics CCCP and Commintern about the period under his leadership. For more serious study, read this (http://www.kke.gr/18o_synedrio/apofash_toy_18oy_synedrioy_toy_kke_gia_to_sosialis mo).

[Delenda Carthago]

And of course, the opinion from an ex-member arguing...well, bollocks basically, is relevant because...eh s/he was in the party, I suppose.
Yes. The opinion of someone who is a communist 20 years now, is less important than a nobodies opinion in Revleft that obviously knows better.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ6Qa5eFa-VxVHUa5hTvx8dtxw_kYTSGyj8sIBYykyOyWv8Rgg8

[Delenda Carthago]

Anyway, that post from LinksRadikal reminded me why I dont want to bother anymore. Bye.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes. The opinion of someone who is a communist 20 years now, is less important than a nobodies opinion in Revleft that obviously knows better.

Yeah, argument supported by evidence clearly entails that one's position is superior. Unlike empty assertions such as that crap about KKE and Pannekoek. Sure, you can also back that up with texts or y'know - an argument - so that at least a semblance of thought on your part may remain. Though, you're obviously free to continue with this approach of commie cred as opposed to substance in arguments.

So, show us ignorant non-Greeks how does the Pannekoek influecne manifest itself.

And while we're at it, is KKE a Third Period Stalinist party?

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Stalin as a person? I just told you that its not the people, its the politics. And I just told you some of the criticisms that KKE applys to the politics CCCP and Commintern about the period under his leadership. For more serious study, read this (http://www.kke.gr/18o_synedrio/apofash_toy_18oy_synedrioy_toy_kke_gia_to_sosialis mo).

Ussr under Stalin I meant.Why would kke or any communist care Stalin as a person.I mean sure if you are interested in him but yeah it should be obvious I am talking about the period Stalin was in charge.

[The Idler]

Impossibilist Socialism.

[Mather]

I'm an anarchist communist.

I am one because I reject the state as an instrument of the bourgeoisie, which it uses to control and repress the working class. I believe that the state needs to be overthrown and destroyed and that this can only be done by the working class, it is their historical task. I reject all participation in elections and bourgeois democracy. I reject all forms of nationalism, including national liberation and I believe that any genuine anti-imperialist stance has to be based solely on the interests of the working class, without tying them to any particular national faction of the bourgeoisie and imperialism.

I am also a Marxist in the sense that agree with him on the law of value, historical materialism and his view on the historical development of class based societies. In my view, you can't really call yourself a class struggle anarchist if you are not also a historical materialist.

[Sea]

What does this mean, however?

Nothing more than a frank statement of idealism. First, you cook up the "fact" that there is a mysterious law of all motion and change which is suspiciously much like some arch-idealists had to say about the absolute, but proceed to ground it in "matter", and voila - it is inevitable.

I wonder what's gonna happen to that universal law of motion and change one worldwide communism is established.

And just to anticipate some remarks - no I do not deny that "we must not try to check class struggle".Uncle Joe states almost verbatim in that quote that the contradictions in question are inherent to capitalism. So presumably when capitalism is gone, its contradictions are too. That's what happens to them. Don't make it harder than it is, or you're just being an ass.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I'm an anarchist who hates all other anarchist and anarchist "theory" (or lack of). I tend to drift towards Marxism on a lot of subjects like history, class, philosophy, etc. I just tend to hate all tendencies though, and just tend to focus on general/vague full-communism and organizing my job(s).
I wish DeLeonism hadn't run itself into a wall. It's really nice on the surface.

At end of the day, I'm an anarcho-syndicalist who realizes the anarchists kill anarchism, and the only way anarchist principles, organizing, groups, etc. could only be saved by non-anarchists.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I guess I'd probably classify myself as a revolutionary socialist w/ syndicalist-sympathies.

[Bala Perdida]

Some sort of Anarchist Communist/Libertarian Socialist. It puts individual freedom and the collective good at equal pars. Also I believe all countries are obselete ruling mechanisms, and only the people can be trusted to govern themselves. I'be come to hate the idea of a bunch of assholes in a city I've never been to deciding every aspect of my life.
Also the revolutionary idea of the abolition of money. It's got some problems, but I think it fixes many more than it causes.

[1848]

The primary reason for me being a Marxist-Leninist is that I have a deep, unmitigated respect for Lenin. I can imagine it as a socialist state, but I simply can't imagine it as a Marxist anarchy, as much as I would love something like that. I've always admired the idea of a society run by the masses; I absolutely detest American plutocracy. Also, I fully endorse an "armed insurrection" since that seems to be the only way to get things done these days.

[The Idler]

The primary reason for me being a Marxist-Leninist is that I have a deep, unmitigated respect for Lenin. I can imagine it as a socialist state, but I simply can't imagine it as a Marxist anarchy, as much as I would love something like that. I've always admired the idea of a society run by the masses; I absolutely detest American plutocracy. Also, I fully endorse an "armed insurrection" since that seems to be the only way to get things done these days.That's surprising frankness and honesty. Most Leninists aren't that succinct.

[Blake's Baby]

Left Communist.

Someone once told me 'Left Communism is what Anarchists do when they grow up'. I was pretty annoyed about that at the time, as I was an Anarchist.

The more I looked into it the more sense it seemed to make. Not necessarily either of the biggest Left Communist organisations but as a tendency - I have disagreements on some questions with both or either of the ICC and ICT, but on the whole I think their analyses are closer to reality than any other tendencies', including both the Impossiblists and the Anarchist Communists (both of which I agree with to a great extent).

[Blake's Baby]

...

As I said before "stalinist" is someone that wants to apply (and agrees) with every political descision was made by CPSU and Commintern during the leadership years of Stalin, right? KKE today criticaly rejects many of the political descisions that were made back then...

No, a Stalinist is someone who accepts the validity of the theory of socialism in one country.

That's it, I think. 'SioC? YES/NO'

[The Idler]

No, a Stalinist is someone who accepts the validity of the theory of socialism in one country.

That's it, I think. 'SioC? YES/NO'
So Hoxhaists and Tito fans count as Stalinists?

[Blake's Baby]

Yes. As do Maoists. You can reject individual policies that Stalin pursued, you can think killing loads of people wasn't a good idea, you can hate his moustache, but if you think socialism in one country is possible, you're a Stalinist. If you don't, you're not.

Which makes Kruschev a Stalinist, obviously.

[Delenda Carthago]

Yes. As do Maoists. You can reject individual policies that Stalin pursued, you can think killing loads of people wasn't a good idea, you can hate his moustache, but if you think socialism in one country is possible, you're a Stalinist. If you don't, you're not.

Which makes Kruschev a Stalinist, obviously.
Because, fuck Logic.:laugh:

[Creative Destruction]

if i had to be pinned to any tendency, i'd be a left communist more than anything. lately, i've been really interested in councillist ideas.

[Blake's Baby]

Because, fuck Logic.:laugh:

Probably doesn't make sense to you, but then again I suspect you don't know where the sun goes at night.

Stalinism = the theory of socialism in one country. Get over it.

[jamesx101]

Anarchist without adjectives, but I'm open to new ideas. I only support direction action & grassroots activism from below, and I want to abolish all forms of hierarchy.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Someone once told me 'Left Communism is what Anarchists do when they grow up'.


Holy crap! I'm already grown up and i only recently switched from Marxism to anarchism... Now what? ;)

[Blake's Baby]

Revel in your obviously ultra-rebellious status?

[reb]

Instead, KKE has a stricly anticapitalist line, not willing to collaborate with forces that are against the working class power

Like supporting small landowners and the petite bourgeoisie?

[keine_zukunft]

anti-national communist is the best way of describing my tendency..

[freecommunist]

Left Communist after a long time re-evaluating my anarchist-communist politics over a couple of years, but I was already heavily influenced by councilist ideas anyway.

[Zanters]

Marxist-Leninist, because I believe that communism cannot be achieved without the dictatorship of the prol. to disable the bourg..

[Blake's Baby]

I think that communism can't be acheived without the dictatorship of the proletariat suppressing the bourgeoisie. I also believe that Marxist-Leninists are counter-revolutionary.

[Zanters]

I think that communism can't be acheived without the dictatorship of the proletariat suppressing the bourgeoisie. I also believe that Marxist-Leninists are counter-revolutionary.

I know Left communist are anti ML, but may I asked why you think they are that? I have seen people accuse them of being revisionist, but never counter-revolutionary.

[Blake's Baby]

Not sure where to start.

Every single policy of every 'Marxist-Leninist' party is anti-revolutionary.

First, I suppose, socialism in one country. Any party that accepts the theory of socialism in one country has surrendured the world revolution to the task of building capitalism in one state. Not socialism, capitalism. So, every 'Marxist-Leninist' party is pro-capitalist.

Every 'Marxist-Leninist' party that accepts the defence of the Soviet Union in WWI (and why wouldn't they?) has gone over to nationalism. Not necessarily 'their own' nationalism, to be sure, but 'defence of the socialist fatherland' is a bourgeois position (the USSR already being as explained above a capitalist state). It was both capitalist and imperialist (it couldn't be otherwise) and to fight for the Soviet Union's imperialist foreigh policy is to defend imperialism.

Every 'Marxist-Leninist' party that seeks to control the state on behalf of the working class is, rather than being the liberator of the class, playing the role of a new managerial elite seeking to run national (state) capitalism, because nationalisation of the economy is neither socialisation nor socialism. The managers will inevitably become the new ruling class as happened in the Soviet Union within a few years of the revolution.

That's without getting into specific anti-working class policies, like strike-breaking and whatnot.

[Zanters]

Some pretty strong accusations there, but it seems as if you're attacking the straw man in the sense you are not acknowledging what ML really is.

In the communist manifesto, it says that the proccess of collectivlization is to gradually get rid of capitalism. It states that the bourgs will still exist, so will capitalistic practices. It is the proccess of riding of that, which cannot take place over night.

But, I am not in place to talk for Marxism-Leninism, because one, I am no where qualified, and two, I am not sure if ML is truley my ideology, because i believe socialism in a state is possible, but communism must be world-wide.

I am just here to learn, hopefully some other tendency peoples will come and discuss this.

[Goblin]

I used to identify as a trot, but these days i identify more with Left Communism. I still have a lot of stuff to read though.

[Illegalitarian]

Probably doesn't make sense to you, but then again I suspect you don't know where the sun goes at night.

Stalinism = the theory of socialism in one country. Get over it.


There is no such thing as Stalinism, it's a term used to slander Marxist-Leninists. If you think that all there is to Marxist-Leninism is "Socialism in One Country" (You also misunderstand what the term means), you are dead wrong.



Not that I'm defending Marxist-Leninism. While I admire many of the advancements made by Marxist-Leninist states and the national liberation struggles they inspired which dealt some devastating blows to western imperialism, I am not a marxist-leninist.


As for myself, I guess I could be labeled a council-communist, or left-communist, or anarchist, with insurrectionist and post-left sympathies (I never fully understood the difference between the three). I draw most of my inspiration from Kropotkin, Bakunin, Stirner, Pannekoek, and Malatesta. I think Marx and Engels goes without saying for anyone on the left.

[Sea]

But, I am not in place to talk for Marxism-Leninism, because one, I am no where qualified, and two, I am not sure if ML is truley my ideology, because i believe socialism in a state is possible, but communism must be world-wide. This is precisely what Marxism-Leninism teaches.

[Zanters]

Glad I am a on the right way then.

After I looked more into left Communism, it seems more of a thought out form of an arch of communism, which I cannot adhere to. But it seems they still believe in the DOTP, considering it a "council."

What separates the DoTP for ML from th LC concept of the DoTP?

[Blake's Baby]

Firstly, different constituents of the Communist Left have a different conception of the role of party and state in the period after the immediate seizure of power. So what I'm going to say applies to Left Communists other than Bordigists. I'm sure that some supporters of Bordiga will be along to put a different view.

We don't 'consider the DotP a council'. We think that the workers' councils are the form of the DotP, the vehicle the working class uses to implement its revolutionary dictatorship. The workers councils smash the state apparatus and administer society through the revolutionary transition.

MLs on the other hand believe in the dictatorship of the party, not the dictatorship of the working class. The do this with some handwavium about the party representing the working class. Left Comms regard this as substitutionism (substituting party rule for class rule). As this party rule is constututed in a state (ie the task of the party - not the working class - is to take control of the state - not destroy the state) MLs are aiming to be in a position of the management of national capitalism, not in establishing the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

[freecommunist]

There is no such thing as Stalinism, it's a term used to slander Marxist-Leninists. If you think that all there is to Marxist-Leninism is "Socialism in One Country" (You also misunderstand what the term means), you are dead wrong.



Not that I'm defending Marxist-Leninism. While I admire many of the advancements made by Marxist-Leninist states and the national liberation struggles they inspired which dealt some devastating blows to western imperialism, I am not a marxist-leninist.


As for myself, I guess I could be labeled a council-communist, or left-communist, or anarchist, with insurrectionist and post-left sympathies (I never fully understood the difference between the three). I draw most of my inspiration from Kropotkin, Bakunin, Stirner, Pannekoek, and Malatesta. I think Marx and Engels goes without saying for anyone on the left.

I don't think you understand what council-communist, or left-communist, or anarchism are if you think that national liberation is somehow progressive and the fact that you admit you don't understand the differences between the three.

But to help a little,

Council Communists - Came out of the Dutch/German Communist Left generally sceptical of organisation forms but see the need for workers councils as the basis of DOTP

Anarchists - opposed DOTP and party form. Don't believe in the need for a transitional period and totally opposed the idea of a state in any form, though also see workers councils as the basis for a post capitalist society.


Left Communists (not Bordigists) - see the need for a new form of party, a transitional period between capitalism and communism which is the DOTP based on workers councils.

What does unite the three is the belief that only the working class can make the revolution.

[BankBasher]

I'm a proud anarcho-communist.

My interest in anarchism started in high school, but really developed and sharpened in my college years around 10 years ago. I studied all of the different currents and thinkers, from Benjamin Tucker to Leo Tolstoy to Emma Goldman. At the end of the day, I was always attracted to the most radical and anti-authoritarian train of thought: anarchist communism. I remember visiting the local bookstore as a college sophomore, and ordering The Conquest of Bread. Some time later, I ordered What is Anarchism, by Alexander Berkman.

Though I've never been a Marxist-Leninist, I've definitely been influenced by a number of Marxist authors. While his market-based socialism will be rejected by most here, David Schweickart's After Capitalism is an excellent critique of the capitalist system, perhaps the best I've ever read. Chris Harman's People's History of the World is a unique history book, and Michael Parenti's Democracy for the Few is another quality Marxist book.

What drew me to anarchism was the uncompromising anti-authoritarianism and unapologetic activism. The vision hooked me as a teen (I was kicked out of a local church for anti-war remarks in the middle of a sermon) and after all these years later, my radicalism has only INCREASED.

[Redcanadian123]

I have also went back and forth between ideologies; in between Marxist-Leninism and Trotskyism.

[boiler]

I'm not sure what tendency I am anymore. Somewhere between a Maoist and Marxist-Leninist and a little bit Trotsky influence as of late :unsure:

[Red and Black]

Anarchist communist influenced by egoism with an interest in Christian anarchism; wanna fight about it?