My ideology

[Redhead]

Inspired by a recent thread, i decided to post this. I am pretty new to Revleft and im still in the learning fase. But i was wondering, what type of ideology would you put me in?
Some of my opinions:

-Communism must be established internationally to succed. A country with low recources will receive from a country with high recources.

-The USSR, China, Cuba etc. are/were totalitarian dictatorships who werent communists, and have "failed" because of lack of people power.

-A socialist/communist society should be slowly built in the shell of the capitalist state, so the revolution wont be a big change when it happens. The revolution would preferably be peacefull, but violence might be neccesary.

-People on the left should unite and cooperate for the revolution. Anarchists, Marxists, Maoists, Leninists etc. must work for the revolution together and then later solve their different opinions, similar to the different opinions in a political party.

-Capitalism is the reason for global warming, and in a communist world there will be easier to controll, as many capitalists put money in front of enviroment.

-In the final state of socialism, communism, money and wage labour must be abolished. Goods and food will be distributed equally. Building up to it during socialism, wage must be as equally as possible.

-Relgion is ok as long as it doesnt go too far. Banning religion will just piss alot of people off, and most wont go with it.

[CubanDream]

Inspired by a recent thread, i decided to post this. I am pretty new to Revleft and im still in the learning fase. But i was wondering, what type of ideology would you put me in?
Some of my opinions:

-Communism must be established internationally to succed. A country with low recources will receive from a country with high recources.


good post,:)

the first point: do you mean capitalist countries will help other, poorer ones - or only socialist to help other socialist states?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

A socialist/communist society should be slowly built in the shell of the capitalist state
So...a social democrat then.

[Redhead]

good post,:)

the first point: do you mean capitalist countries will help other, poorer ones - or only socialist to help other socialist states?

Well, i believe communism must be established internationally, so in this case there wouldnt be any capitalist countries left.

[Redhead]

So...a social democrat then.

I would say no, as social democrats dont work for a communist society. Social democrats does not want to abolish capitalism either, just weaken it by for example high taxes. My belief is to abolish capitalism completely. The reason i wrote "A socialist/communist society should be slowly built in the shell of the capitalist state" is because a country with already built in socialist programs is easier to turn over, than a full capitalist country were theres every man for himself. The revolution itself is still neccesary, peacefull or bloody. It depends on the country.

[Sinred]

Trotskist?

[helot]

I would say no, as social democrats dont work for a communist society. Social democrats does not want to abolish capitalism either, just weaken it by for example high taxes. My belief is to abolish capitalism completely. The reason i wrote "A socialist/communist society should be slowly built in the shell of the capitalist state" is because a country with already built in socialist programs is easier to turn over, than a full capitalist country were theres every man for himself. The revolution itself is still neccesary, peacefull or bloody. It depends on the country.


what are socialist programs?

[Wonton Carter]

Vanguard or no vanguard? This is an important distinction.

[#FF0000]

So...a social democrat then.

Syndicalists use the exact same language. That point is kinda vague tbh.

Anyway, OP, it sounds like you ought to explore these ideas a little more. Don't feel a need to just go off and say you support this or that just to belong to a "tendency". Instead of saying "this is what I believe -- who am I?" you should read up on leftist thought (historical and contemporary -- too many people just parrot what dead guys said half a century ago and are totally useless because of it) and see what you agree with and what you don't.

[#FF0000]

Vanguard or no vanguard? This is an important distinction.

What does that mean to someone extremely new to Leftist thought, though?

[helot]

Syndicalists use the exact same language. That point is kinda vague tbh.


Yeah building the new world in the shell of the old... the descriptor 'slowly' isn't used though as to me that implies a gradualist approach. Not to say that's what OP meant.

[BolshevikBabe]

You sound like a Trotskyist, but it depends on your position on vanguard parties really

[#FF0000]

The thing I like least about threads like these, aside from how unhelpful they are, is how people people sort folks who aren't Marxist-Leninists or Anarchists into "Trotskyist" or "left-communist" regardless of whether or not the views the OP expresses has anything to do with trotskyism or left-communism.

[Loony Le Fist]

Interesting discussion you set up here. I hope you don't mind me adding to it. :grin:



-Communism must be established internationally to succed. A country with low recources will receive from a country with high recources.


I agree. The long term success of communism, socialism, or even some future syncretic amalgam of leftist thought into a single ideology depends on it becoming internationalized. Otherwise, any nascent success stories will be targets for capitalist imperialism and aggression.



-The USSR, China, Cuba etc. are/were totalitarian dictatorships who werent communists, and have "failed" because of lack of people power.


I would say that would be an accurate description of Cuba. In the cases of the USSR and China, it seems like there might be more going on.



-A socialist/communist society should be slowly built in the shell of the capitalist state, so the revolution wont be a big change when it happens. The revolution would preferably be peacefull, but violence might be neccesary.


This is pretty much where I stand on the issue as well. Any societal and political change has to trickle from the bottom up. It cannot be achieved overnight, but rather through a gradual transition which will likely involve some use of force in self-defense.



-People on the left should unite and cooperate for the revolution. Anarchists, Marxists, Maoists, Leninists etc. must work for the revolution together and then later solve their different opinions, similar to the different opinions in a political party.


Quite. The Trot v. Tankie argument is tired. We must put our differences about minutiae aside for the greater good. After all, I would say that all leftists seem to have a desire is to move society towards a more egalitarian arrangement.



-Capitalism is the reason for global warming, and in a communist world there will be easier to controll, as many capitalists put money in front of enviroment.


I think that a communist society could be just as capable of destroying the environment. However, I agree that the profit motive gives capitalists an excuse to be douches. :laugh:



-In the final state of socialism, communism, money and wage labour must be abolished. Goods and food will be distributed equally. Building up to it during socialism, wage must be as equally as possible.


I would say the final state is the elimination of currency completely. Whether we will get to that point, remains to be seen. However, we have examples of functioning societies that do not use money. Even if those societies happen to be less technologically advanced, I don't see anyone presenting evidence that a lack of a currency is what is preventing them from moving forward technologically.



-Relgion is ok as long as it doesnt go too far. Banning religion will just piss alot of people off, and most wont go with it.

Despite being an atheist, I have no problem with people worshipping. I just don't want policy decisions being made on the basis of scripture.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Inspired by a recent thread, i decided to post this. I am pretty new to Revleft and im still in the learning fase. But i was wondering, what type of ideology would you put me in?
Some of my opinions:

-Communism must be established internationally to succed. A country with low recources will receive from a country with high recources.

-The USSR, China, Cuba etc. are/were totalitarian dictatorships who werent communists, and have "failed" because of lack of people power.

-A socialist/communist society should be slowly built in the shell of the capitalist state, so the revolution wont be a big change when it happens. The revolution would preferably be peacefull, but violence might be neccesary.

-People on the left should unite and cooperate for the revolution. Anarchists, Marxists, Maoists, Leninists etc. must work for the revolution together and then later solve their different opinions, similar to the different opinions in a political party.

-Capitalism is the reason for global warming, and in a communist world there will be easier to controll, as many capitalists put money in front of enviroment.

-In the final state of socialism, communism, money and wage labour must be abolished. Goods and food will be distributed equally. Building up to it during socialism, wage must be as equally as possible.

-Relgion is ok as long as it doesnt go too far. Banning religion will just piss alot of people off, and most wont go with it.

I assume you're new to leftism? If so, your opinions will probably not "match up" to any existing revolutionary current perfectly. I mean, I could take one paragraph of what you've written, the one that talks about the Soviet Union being a "totalitarian state" and proclaim you a Shachtmanist, but in all likeness you aren't even familiar with the theory of bureaucratic collectivism. Likewise for "building the new from within the old" and social-democracy (hipster social-democracy that tries to be r-r-revolutionary is still social-democracy, something that is lost on many members of this site). But what sense would that make?

Anyway, I would encourage you to familiarise yourself with socialist literature, depending on your interests - "your ideology" will develop as you do so, until it is no longer "your" ideology but one of the clearly-defined currents of the socialist movement.

[Redhead]

what are socialist programs?

Free healthcare, collective transport etc.

[synthesis]

I assume you're new to leftism? If so, your opinions will probably not "match up" to any existing revolutionary current perfectly. I mean, I could take one paragraph of what you've written, the one that talks about the Soviet Union being a "totalitarian state" and proclaim you a Shachtmanist, but in all likeness you aren't even familiar with the theory of bureaucratic collectivism. Likewise for "building the new from within the old" and social-democracy (hipster social-democracy that tries to be r-r-revolutionary is still social-democracy, something that is lost on many members of this site). But what sense would that make?

Anyway, I would encourage you to familiarise yourself with socialist literature, depending on your interests - "your ideology" will develop as you do so, until it is no longer "your" ideology but one of the clearly-defined currents of the socialist movement.

What exactly is "hipster social-democracy"?

[Rurkel]

The kind of social-democracy that "tries to be r-r-revolutionary", I guess :closedeyes:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What exactly is "hipster social-democracy"?

SYRIZA, Die Linke, NPA, whatever sots-dem formation Internet nerdarios and washed-up student activists enthuse over these days.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't think mainstream left parties are exemplary of hipsterism. I suggest coming up with a new term.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Opposing the mainstream is too mainstream.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

SYRIZA, Die Linke, NPA, whatever sots-dem formation Internet nerdarios and washed-up student activists enthuse over these days.

I don't think that's a very accurate way to describe those groups. Sure they're popular and are attracting people who are mostly only interested in politics because of the politcal turmoil that followed the financial crisis. Those parties aren't devoid of ideology though. They are however incredibly vague in their wordings and such and don't seem like they're very revolutionary in nature, you're definitely right about that:grin:.


Regarding OP's question: it really is hard to tell what description would best fit you. One couldn't describe you as a stalinist, that much is clear. I'd rule out Maoism as well. From the words you're using I wouldn't think you were any sort of anarchist either but anarchism may appeal to you if you read a little about it. When I see a reference to internationalism, I immediately think trotskyism but international revolution features in quite a few left-wing ideologies. I would even argue a true socialist movement can only be internationalist in nature.

What it comes down to is to read up on these topics I suppose. Only then will you know for yourself what best suits you. If we had to figure what mold you fit into, we'd need obscene amounts of detail. By all means though, stay yourself. Being part of a certain socialist movement doesn't have to define all your opinions.

[Alan OldStudent]

Inspired by a recent thread, i decided to post this. I am pretty new to Revleft and im still in the learning fase. But i was wondering, what type of ideology would you put me in?
Some of my opinions:

-Communism must be established internationally to succed. A country with low recources will receive from a country with high recources.

-The USSR, China, Cuba etc. are/were totalitarian dictatorships who werent communists, and have "failed" because of lack of people power.

-A socialist/communist society should be slowly built in the shell of the capitalist state, so the revolution wont be a big change when it happens. The revolution would preferably be peacefull, but violence might be neccesary.

-People on the left should unite and cooperate for the revolution. Anarchists, Marxists, Maoists, Leninists etc. must work for the revolution together and then later solve their different opinions, similar to the different opinions in a political party.

-Capitalism is the reason for global warming, and in a communist world there will be easier to controll, as many capitalists put money in front of enviroment.

-In the final state of socialism, communism, money and wage labour must be abolished. Goods and food will be distributed equally. Building up to it during socialism, wage must be as equally as possible.

-Relgion is ok as long as it doesnt go too far. Banning religion will just piss alot of people off, and most wont go with it.

My guess is that you're a young person. I wouldn't put you into any tendency except perhaps the tendency of seekers. You are trying to form your outlook and politics and are probably pretty intelligent.

Don't be too quick to attach yourself to a specific tendency. Continue asking questions and trying to analyze. Don't just accept something as true or correct, no matter who says it, unless it makes sense to you. Intelligently question authority. Don't be afraid to change your mind. Accept that you'll make mistakes.

Do lots of reading and be an activist.

I happen to be a pretty orthodox Marxist, so I have some differences of opinion with you. Nevertheless, seeing so many young people with your type of questions encourages me greatly about the future of the human race.

Self education is a revolutionary act and an empathetic imagination is subversive. Be a revolutionary and a subversive.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

[Redhead]

Vanguard or no vanguard? This is an important distinction.

No vanguard. I think creating an elite is the first step to totalitarianism.

[slum]

totalitarianism.


what does this word mean to you, if you don't mind my asking?

[Redhead]

I wouldn't think you were any sort of anarchist either but anarchism may appeal to you if you read a little about it.

I dont agree to the typical anarchist aproach to a revolution (skipping the socialism stage for example)

[Redhead]

what does this word mean to you, if you don't mind my asking?

It means a dictatorship. When you give a small group of people power it is hard to remove the power again.

[ckaihatsu]

No vanguard. I think creating an elite is the first step to totalitarianism.


Here's a differing conception of a vanguard, from another thread:





[A] 100% participation rate over 100% of all existing issues would be a hypothetical ideal, as for a globally-generalizing revolutionary vanguard.)

[bilgacosmin]

Hello everyone!

I joined this community in order to discuss my political ideas, which happen to be the same thing that Redhead tries to describe.

I aswell am uncertain which tendecy I belong to, although after some quick reading it seems it's close to Anarcho-Communism, I'm not sure it's exactly the same thing.

I'm not much of a reader and never been fond of politics, but what brought me here was the thousands of questions I've asked myself about how we can get rid of the unpleasant things created by today's politics in out society, leading me to a system belonging to the left.

I'll probably make a thread some time to discuss what I'm thinking, and hear some true counter-arguments, since every friend I wanted to discuss it rejected it's viabilty because "the communism is dead" :)