Dirty pinko reporting in!

[Delusional Kid]

I should start off by saying that I'm not a full blown anti-capitalist leftist.
I am however very sympathetic to your cause.

I've been lurking on this forum for quite a while now, if i understand correctly this means I'll be restricted, right?

Anyway, since i'm still just in high school and have a lot to learn i think it would be foolish of me do subscribe to a single ideology at this point.

If i were to describe my political views, they would be somewhere just left of social a democrat. (As I said I'm not a full anti-capitalist leftist)
Well i hope you will all respect that and enjoy conversing and debating with me.

Also, I'm from Ontario.

[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.

How do you want change society? Via parliament exclusively or, if there is a revolutionary periods in society, use that for our class to gain political control?

[Delusional Kid]

Thanks for the reply Q! :)

Ideally I'd like to change society through reform, which though one could argue is revolutionary. But, I do understand that the world is not perfect and more militant action may be need under an extremely oppressive system.

[Q]

;2744249']Thanks for the reply Q! :)

Ideally I'd like to change society through reform, which though one could argue is revolutionary. But, I do understand that the world is not perfect and more militant action may be need under an extremely oppressive system.
Right. The reasoning why most, if not all, currents on this forum think a revolution is necessary, is because we think the state is modelled in a highly top-down manner, on average benefitting the minority ruling class. Reforms can do much, but this state is a roadblock and has to go if we are to move forward.

The state consists of many formal parts and, one could argue, there are also extra-state and meta-state institutions. Like, the bureaucratic apparatus, the army and police, the judiciary, the big corporate media and the international financial markets.

Orthodox Marxists, like myself, aim for what we call a 'democratic republic', meaning that we aim to radically democratise all aspects of society, remove any formal hierarchies and, in the process, overthrow the state. I wrote a blog post about this last year (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=18887) if you like to know more. The democratic republic is, as Friedrich Engels put it, the specific form of working class rule, as the proletariat is the vast majority in all western countries. Such a programme may only truly be carried out when the old state is in crisis and can no longer rule in the old way (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=19090).

Reformists in general think however that the state is somehow 'neutral' in class society (quite often I find reformists downplaying the very existence of class society, which is a logical consequence of thinking the state is neutral). So, if the state is neutral, one can mould it in whatever way one sees fit. Reform it to be more 'humane' or whatever. In this vision, parliament is the highest political arena and revolution is a nuisance, a positive danger even in a revolutionary period, that has to be eradicated.

So, this is the reason why we restrict non-revolutionaries, including social-democrats. And I kinda wonder where you stand.

[#FF0000]

I think people who are "learning" and who are on the whole kind of "undecided" are usually sort of ignored for awhile when it comes to getting restricted.

[Delusional Kid]

Right. The reasoning why most, if not all, currents on this forum think a revolution is necessary, is because we think the state is modelled in a highly top-down manner, on average benefitting the minority ruling class. Reforms can do much, but this state is a roadblock and has to go if we are to move forward.

The state consists of many formal parts and, one could argue, there are also extra-state and meta-state institutions. Like, the bureaucratic apparatus, the army and police, the judiciary, the big corporate media and the international financial markets.

Orthodox Marxists, like myself, aim for what we call a 'democratic republic', meaning that we aim to radically democratise all aspects of society, remove any formal hierarchies and, in the process, overthrow the state. I wrote a blog post about this last year[/URL] if you like to know more. The democratic republic is, as Friedrich Engels put it, the specific form of working class rule, as the proletariat is the vast majority in all western countries. Such a programme may only truly be carried out when the old state is in crisis and can no longer rule in the old way

Reformists in general think however that the state is somehow 'neutral' in class society (quite often I find reformists downplaying the very existence of class society, which is a logical consequence of thinking the state is neutral). So, if the state is neutral, one can mould it in whatever way one sees fit. Reform it to be more 'humane' or whatever. In this vision, parliament is the highest political arena and revolution is a nuisance, a positive danger even in a revolutionary period, that has to be eradicated.

So, this is the reason why we restrict non-revolutionaries, including social-democrats. And I kinda wonder where you stand.
I read your your blog post and see that we share many similar views and goals. However, i still believe that such goals can be achievable through reform.

I have yet to read any of Marx's work
(Outside of some quotes here and there) So I still have much to learn

As for where i stand, as i said in my first post i am just left of social democracy.
I believe that major crucial industries should be nationalized, but i also believe that trade and markets should be maintained.
And also if it matters my political compass position is:Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36

[Sinister Intents]

Hi welcome to RevLeft comrade :)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Welcome to revleft. I had similar ideas a few years back in my teens, mainly out of an ideological preference for a state-owned economy that would improve the living standards of workers. That was my ideology.

I've come to realise now, though, that it's not a question of ideology. Ideology is a particular political belief, or set of beliefs, that sit narrowly within an existing social system (slavery, feudalism, capitalism etc.). What I believe revolution is about, is not ideology (though of course you will find some ideologues masquerading as revolutionaries), but about recognising the need and the potential for a change in social system, from capitalism to some other social system; as revolutionaries of the Marxist and Anarchist schools, we say that communism is the social system that should replace capitalism. Within these schools there are plenty of narrow ideologies, but the basic premise is that we want a change of the social system upon which everything else - politics, the economy, and the social sphere - functions.

I hope you find Revleft an interesting, challenging and helpful place, and that it will give you ideas, encouragement, and motivation to be able to become more fully involved in real-world activities, be they political, social, single-issue or otherwise. :)

[The Jay]

Hello there. If you're ever in need remember this motto: Jays fly together! Happy posting!