Greetings to the World's Workers!

[Zoroaster]

Hello, comrades! I am William Morris (fake name) and I'd like to introduce myself.

I am currently a Freshman at Exeter High School. I was originally a liberal until I started watching the video's of Libertarian Socialist Rants. For some time, I was an Anarcho-Communist, but after much thought, I have changed.

I believe that the workers and peasants must take action through strikes and other non-violent forms of taking power (although if necessary, the working-class should organize councils to democratically organize a"People's War" against the state).

All forms of currency will be abolished, replaced instead with the model "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Work hours will be decreased to a four-hour workday, allowing citizens to spend the rest of their time doing what their hearts desire. Workplace democracy will be a requirement in every business place. All forms of privately-owned means of production will be handed over to the workers, and will democratically co-operate with other workers.

Communities will work together using a governing system like the one the Zapatista's propose, with delegates that are directly elected by the people so that they may work with other communities on issues. This will allow for both direct consensus democracy and for realistic co-operations separate from the state.

In order to defend the society, a defense committee will be created, which is made up of officers elected by the soldiers and workers. This government's main purpose is to organize voluntary democratic militia's in times of war, create communal councils similar to the one's the Iroquois Confederacy had, and set up a police system similar to the one Parecon proposes. This ensures that the laws that are put in place represent the majority, not a upper class.

If you have any questions or if you would like to debate, feel free to ask!

[Q]

Welcome :)

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

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

Since you raise the army question, I wonder what you think about the democratic-republican demand of militias and universal training in the use of weapons as a political demand? This would shift the demand from "well, we'll figure that out once we're in a revolutionary civil war" to "well, this is an important political question today".

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Peasants?! Where?

After only a year of worker's republic we (the people) will be ready for anarcho-communism? This is in America as well I am assuming. I am of the opinion that it will take a couple of generations with the relevant education to achieve this kind of society, perhaps I am alone in this thinking though.

Forgot to mention... Welcome :)

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Welcome. :grin:

[Zoroaster]

To Xena Warrior Proletarian:

You make a good point. I shouldn't have given an exact date. The education of the working class will take a while, but as long as it's based on democracy and proletarian internationalism, I am sure that it will work. Also, I mentioned peasants due to how I hope this revolutionary ideal can also be applied in third-world countries, where a screwed-up version of feudalism still exists.

I appreciate the advice, comrade.

[Zoroaster]

During the time while the state exists, I believe a standing army should exist, but it should be voluntary, based on the election of officers, and that more funds should be placed towards the public sector. After the state is destroyed, towns will form their own militias if threatened, which will work co-operatively with other militia's.

I agree with the Democratic party's demand for less military spending. That money could be used instead for a state healthcare system or for other non-violent purposes.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I agree with the Democratic party's demand for less military spending. That money could be used instead for a state healthcare system or for other non-violent purposes.

The Democrats, along with all the other parties of capitalism, aren't really opposed to the imperial military. In fact, their rule relies on it, along with the other forces of the state. Despite the occasional rhetoric by a lone Democratic politician about reducing military spending, there really is nothing that a Democrat can demand that we communists should demand with them. The state's politicians aren't ever going make demands that would seriously endanger the military. While we can defend reforms previously made by capitalist politicians, we shouldn't support non-useful proposal A by Senator B because it may seem *slightly* better than any other proposal. Rather, communists need to put out demands that go further than what a capitalist politician is demanding and expose how empty his or her demands really are in supporting the needs of workers. Communists must always tell the truth to other workers, that socialist revolution is the only real solution to getting real and useful working class demands fully met.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Welcome, my young comrade.

Sounds like you got started around the time I did (I was a sophmore in high school when I first read the manifesto).

Just a little friendly piece of advice: Don't burn yourself out. Politics are important, but one of the most important parts of socialism is that people have a right to fun and leisure. It's perfectly OK to go politics free for a while in your youth if you think you need it. Life is for living.

[Zoroaster]

To Fourth Internationale:

Fair point. Capitalists will be capitalists, whether their conservative or liberal. Even the Rockefeller Republicsns, who are similar to the modern Democratic candidates stand for strong, imperialistic army's.

P.S: If your wondering, I like Trotskyism and the fourth international. Death to Stalinists!

[Blake's Baby]

Welcome.

Protip - probably not a good idea to declare that you want members of this board killed. It get people's backs up. While I have no love for Stalinists, I don't have much respect for Trotskyism either. I will not, however, declare that you should be killed, even though your ideology is counter-revolutionary. You may yet grow out of it after all.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Welcome to RevLeft.


For a time, the economy will be managed like a social democratic country. Private property will be replaced with workers co-operatives democratically managing the company. Voluntary collectivization programs will be put in place, and a welfare state will be created.

The thing is, cooperatives are a form of private property. Private property isn't just individual property; it is any form of property that places exclusive control of a portion of the means of production in some subset of society. It seems that you envision a system much like the present one, except that the various companies that compete in a market system will be managed by "their own" workers.


Protip - probably not a good idea to declare that you want members of this board killed. It get people's backs up. While I have no love for Stalinists, I don't have much respect for Trotskyism either. I will not, however, declare that you should be killed, even though your ideology is counter-revolutionary. You may yet grow out of it after all.

Aw, but we respect you.

Anyway, I think that it is incorrect to place such an emphasis on ideology. Obviously people are going to be killed in the revolution. That's unfortunate, but that's how it goes. But those that are killed - except hostages, the inevitable collateral casualties etc. - will be killed because of their actions, and these are primarily determined by their class position, not their (former) ideology.

For example, people often talk about "Bolsheviks killing anarchists" ("anarchists" apparently including such stalwart libertarians as Gots and Avksentiyev, but let's not go there), but in fact a lot of anarchists fought alongside the Bolsheviks, from Zheleznyak to Grossman etc. Conversely, a number of Russian Marxists fought for the whiteguards and interventionists. This was determined, ultimately, by their class position - the petit-bourgeois Mensheviks of the Organising Committee fought against the chiefly proletarian new Bolshevik group, the peasant anarchists of Makhno tried to disrupt the food dictatorship while the urban anarchists, particularly those of the Pale and from abroad, fought with the Bolsheviks to preserve it. If a revolution were to happen tomorrow, under the leadership of a revolutionary proletarian party, I expect that the worker Stalinists and leftcoms would be mostly on the same side of the barricades.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Welcome to RevLeft.



The thing is, cooperatives are a form of private property. Private property isn't just individual property; it is any form of property that places exclusive control of a portion of the means of production in some subset of society. It seems that you envision a system much like the present one, except that the various companies that compete in a market system will be managed by "their own" workers.



Aw, but we respect you.

Anyway, I think that it is incorrect to place such an emphasis on ideology. Obviously people are going to be killed in the revolution. That's unfortunate, but that's how it goes. But those that are killed - except hostages, the inevitable collateral casualties etc. - will be killed because of their actions, and these are primarily determined by their class position, not their (former) ideology.

For example, people often talk about "Bolsheviks killing anarchists" ("anarchists" apparently including such stalwart libertarians as Gots and Avksentiyev, but let's not go there), but in fact a lot of anarchists fought alongside the Bolsheviks, from Zheleznyak to Grossman etc. Conversely, a number of Russian Marxists fought for the whiteguards and interventionists. This was determined, ultimately, by their class position - the petit-bourgeois Mensheviks of the Organising Committee fought against the chiefly proletarian new Bolshevik group, the peasant anarchists of Makhno tried to disrupt the food dictatorship while the urban anarchists, particularly those of the Pale and from abroad, fought with the Bolsheviks to preserve it. If a revolution were to happen tomorrow, under the leadership of a revolutionary proletarian party, I expect that the worker Stalinists and leftcoms would be mostly on the same side of the barricades.
Do you think ideology will play a small part during the revolution or no part?I mean can't a petit bourgeois fight alongside proletarian for ideological reasons?

[Zoroaster]

To Blake's Baby:

Thanks, but I must ask: why do you think my idea is counter-revolutionary?

[Zoroaster]

To Vincent West:

I believe that social democracy must exist for a short time in order to survive in a capitalist-dominated earth like ours. A decentralized economy would only survive in a capitalist society if multiple revolutions succeeded, which is unlikely. However, this temporary phase can still be worker-friendly, with workplace democracy and the creation of a welfare state.

You do, however, make a fair point about the ideologies. I wouldn't attempt to purge Stalinists, Maoists or any ideology. They would be aloud to have a party and to participate in elections and government affairs. I only said that due to the fact that the person I was responding to was a Trotskyist, and I can say without any doubt that Trotskyists are strongly opposed to Stalinism.

Thanks, comrade.

[Blake's Baby]

...


Aw, but we respect you...

;)

I cheated. If you re-read what I said, I said 'while I have no love for Stalinists... I have little respect for Trotskyism..."

That's because half way through I remembered that there were some Trotskyists that I get on very well with and who I respect as human beings even if I disagree with their politics.


To Blake's Baby:

Thanks, but I must ask: why do you think my idea is counter-revolutionary?

Because it doesn't challenge capitalism, in fact it seems to be a way of trying to preserve it.


... I can say without any doubt that Trotskyists are strongly opposed to Stalinism...

You'd think, wouldn't you?

The problem is that Trotskyism ends up alibi-ing Stalinism. The notion that there was anything progressive left in the Soviet Union after 1927 is one of the biggest obstacles to the working class coming to consciousness of its own historic role. Trotskyism's critical support for the Soviet Union is critical support for the counter-revolution.

Trotsky was never able to see that 'Stalinism' wasn't the problem, the Soviet state itself was the problem and the answer was not a 'revolution against the bureaucracy' because in 1927 (and later) there was no 'answer'. The world revolution had failed at that point, and what was necessary was to learn the lessons of that failure and prepare for the next attempt. Because Trotsky was so involved in creating the Soviet state (that became the Stalinist state) he couldn't ideologically let go (because that would be to admit his own errors, failures and crimes). He's passed that inability on to his political descendants.

Some of whom are, otherwise, nice people.

[Blake's Baby]

DP

[Zoroaster]

To Blake's Baby:

Wow, I have a lot to learn. I've been thinking about becoming a libertarian Marxist in the anarchist sense, and this just convinced me fully. Thanks.

P.S.: I'll be modifying my introduction.

[Blake's Baby]

There is no 'libertarian Marxism' 'in the Anarchist sense'. 'Libertarian Marxism' is Anarchist code for 'Marxists that we like, usually because they're somewhat critical of Lenin'.

I recommend checking out the WSPUS (World Socialist Party of the United States) - official website of which is here http://wspus.org/ - who are an 'Impossiblist' organisation that might be to your taste; also the ICT (Internationalist Communist Tendency) - English website here - http://www.leftcom.org/en - and the ICC (Interntional Communist Current) - English website here http://en.internationalism.org/ - (both of these latter two are organisations of the historic Communist Left) to find out about some of the organisations that defend Marxist positions without defending what the USSR became.


(http://www.leftcom.org/en)

[Zoroaster]

To Blake's Baby:

Libertarian Marxism was a term used by anarcho-communist Daniel Guerin. It's a term used for anarcho-communists who analyze situations and solutions with materialist thinking. For more information, I recommend Daniel's paper "Libertarian Marxism?" For more information. Either way, thanks a lot, I've got a lot to learn.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

DP

At least buy me dinner first. :o


I cheated. If you re-read what I said, I said 'while I have no love for Stalinists... I have little respect for Trotskyism..."

That's because half way through I remembered that there were some Trotskyists that I get on very well with and who I respect as human beings even if I disagree with their politics.

But surely, there are also Stalinists that you respect as human beings? In any case, what I wanted to say was that, even though I disagree with the various currents and tendencies that many people lump together as "left communist" - I have a soft spot for Bordiga, but then again, who doesn't? - I think I, as a Trotskyist, can still learn something from their debates and their attempts to make sense of the world situation. Likewise with Stalinists (I imagine most of them would want to distance themselves from that label). I mean, I'm the last person to advocate any sort of "left unity", but I don't think the very real differences between us preclude a serious and polite engagement with each other's ideas.

Or something like that - I think I formulated that rather badly.


I believe that social democracy must exist for a short time in order to survive in a capitalist-dominated earth like ours. A decentralized economy would only survive in a capitalist society if multiple revolutions succeeded, which is unlikely. However, this temporary phase can still be worker-friendly, with workplace democracy and the creation of a welfare state.

I mean, the problem is that most people here use "social democracy" to mean the practice of parties like the German SPD - a method of managing capitalism rather than dismantling it. I'm not sure that's what you mean, though.

I also don't think communism can be called a "decentralised" economy in any sense - if the means of production are socialised, their management becomes an issue for the entire society, which necessitates centralisation. I think people make a fetish out of decentralisation for no good reason.

[Max]

Hello William Morris, its nice to see another High Schooler(I'm in 10 grade) embracing Communism. It seems that, at least at my school, communism is gaining a larger following despite attempts by the teachers to teach us the "evils" of communism. At my school there is a group of us communists, and i agree with the point that it will take many generations to achieve a total communistic state, as we need to re educate the populous that worships its Burgoise(excuse my spelling) oppressors.

[Zoroaster]

To imax227:

I'm surprised you even have communists at your school. My brother used to be an anarcho-communist until recently (he's now a social democrat), and whenever I mention communism people say "oh, he supports China!", even though they aren't communist. Whenever I try to explain what a Libertarian Marxist is, people think that I support Stalin. Most of my friends are liberals, although two of them are revolutionary socialists. At least they listen. Either way, thanks comrade!

[Blake's Baby]

To Blake's Baby:

Libertarian Marxism was a term used by anarcho-communist Daniel Guerin. It's a term used for anarcho-communists who analyze situations and solutions with materialist thinking. For more information, I recommend Daniel's paper "Libertarian Marxism?" For more information. Either way, thanks a lot, I've got a lot to learn.

I know it was coined by Guerin. It's not used for 'anarcho-communists' though. Rosa Luxemburg (who's one of the 'Libertarian Marxists' because she criticised Lenin on occasion) was by no means 'anarcho-communist'. In fact she criticised Anarchism very forcefully, as did many of the German Left Communists/Council Communists who are also regarded as 'Libertarian Marxists' (and they also criticised Lenin... co-incidence? I don't think so).

The Communist Left now (except for the Bordigist current) is also 'Libertarian Marxist' (in that we reject the notion of the proletarian party seizing state power). However, we also reject the notion of 'Libertarian Marxism'. We don't find the 'libertarian/authoritarian' dichotomy to be helpful. Engels asked 'what is more authoritarian than a revolution?' and it remains a very good question. Marxism is certainly emancipatory, in that it is a political praxis aiming towards human liberation, but it isn't 'Libertarian' in the way Anarchists use the term.

[Max]

To William Morris- yes, there are two others at my school. Unfortunately, i have lots of experiences like you mentioned, as soon as i say I am a communist people think that I support totalitarian control and support mass killings of dissenters and that i worship stalin.

[Zoroaster]

To Blake's Baby:

Thanks for the info, friend! I plan on joining the World Socialist Party of the United States after looking at some of their political beliefs. I hope to discuss about things with you more.