Left Winged Libertarian

[Rage]

I am a Left leaning libertarian. Will I be welcome here. I have come to learn about other systems here so maybe while I am here I might change my Mind but will I be welcome here if I am a Left Leaning libertarian who belives in Capitilism but can see how communism works and why people think that way.

Thank You.


/,,/
Rock on!

[LSD]

When you say libertarian do you mean in the anarcho-capitalist sense, or do you mean solely on the political spectrum?

That is, do you oppose government intervention in social matters. economic matters, or both?

[Rage]

In both.


/,,/
Rock on!

[LSD]

...so, basically, you support Laisez-Fair free market capitalism with limited or no government involvement.

In what way, then, are you "Left leaning"?

[Free Spirit]

In both ways (s)he said of might changing his/her mind!

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

While we're at it - I think the system is somewhat flawing. For example, let's say that I want a world of extreme right wing economics (the far right on the economics axis), and at the same time anarchism at the political axis (bottom of the politics axis) - which would place me on far lower right corner.

But! Isn't this system impossible? In anarchy, people are free to do whatever they like - they can either live in communities and support each other, abolish money and so on - or, they can form corporate city-states where everything is based on money. I mean, there are no rules, no governments.

The same (or similar) problem comes up if you support dictatorial regimes - a dictator can do whatever he wants - there are no rules to his power, there are no list to follow for him. One day, the dictator can be nice and supportive to the people, the next day he can implement racial rules and fascist brutality - it is up to him to decide.

Kind of a paradox.

[LSD]

In anarchy, people are free to do whatever they like

I think you have a misunderstanding of Anarchism.

Anarchism does not mean "everyone doing what they want", it means precisely what communism means, a stateless communlaistic society. Even Marxist-Leninists aim for this same ultimate goal of a stateless society, they just believe we need a "transitional" state to get there.

Anarchy does not mean no rules, it means no rulers.


The same (or similar) problem comes up if you support dictatorial regimes - a dictator can do whatever he wants - there are no rules to his power, there are no list to follow for him. One day, the dictator can be nice and supportive to the people, the next day he can implement racial rules and fascist brutality - it is up to him to decide.

Well, if he does this then the economic system would shift on the scale.

So what?

That has no bearing on the fact that the econmic system has to lie somewhere on that scale!


In both ways (s)he said of might changing his/her mind!
:blink:

I'm sorry, I don't understand that statement.//

[rice349]

no, you're not welcome on the fact that you're ignorant. You're not a left-leaning libertarian if you support laissez-faire capitalism, you basically fall under the U.S. Libertarian Party.

[Free Spirit]

I'm sorry, I don't understand that statement.//
(s)he said -"I have come to learn about other systems here so maybe while I am here I might change my Mind"

Even though in anyways being into acceptation of capitalism and being a leftist doesn’t' exist, I still believe "anti anti-capitalists" can change their mind into being "anti capitalists". I've changed views of people around me from most conservative to almost racists. I can't see why not welcome if we can change people’s minds through our sensible posts we have here on Che Lives. I suppose that no leftist has had the same political thoughts his/her whole life. Things change and develop, begging from knowing what is good and bad for us as when we where kids, the whole democracy in the sandbox and policy of plying toys and games.

[Guest1]

Well, give it a few days of discussion, and then we'll decide if you're welcome here or not.

It seems you're confused enough that you desperately need some talking to, so I won't restrict you yet, but know that you'll probably end up restricted soon.

[encephalon]

Left-leaning "libertarian" makes no sense if used in the modern U.S. sense.. a left-wing libertarian is essentially an anarchist by my understanding..

If you're here to ask questions, then I don't see why anyone would not welcome you.. and yes, that's directed towards those that said you aren't welcome. This is the perfect place for someone to get a very broad overview of leftist movement, and it would be very foolish to restrict someone simply because they believe something differently but actively want to learn about leftist movements.. what does that solve, exactly?!?

If you're here to debate your particular view, however, provided you are a confused right-wing libertarian, then yes, you will be restricted to the opposing ideologies section. The debates going on in every other forum is for leftists against leftists, if that makes any sense.

If you are truly curious, and you don't intend on actively debating/trolling, then I'd suggest you primarily restrict your posts to the learning section yourself until, if chance has it, you've a change in perspective.

I can't see why anyone would justifiably want you restricted on the basis that you ask honest questions out of honest curiosity, and not to start some kind of flame.

Regardless, I welcome you nonetheless.. I don't think anyone with an open mind should be pushed away, unless they're blatantly a bigot and or raging capitalist. And if you're restricted in the future: welcome to Oppossing ideologies :D

[encephalon]

no, you're not welcome on the fact that you're ignorant.

80% of the working class is ignorant in some form. Our intent isn't to exclude them from their own liberation, it's to destroy that ignorance. Pushing them away without giving it a second thought like you seem to want is feeding that ignorance, not liberation.

[Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 10:43 AM
Left-leaning "libertarian" makes no sense if used in the modern U.S. sense.. a left-wing libertarian is essentially an anarchist by my understanding..
Well I would be an Anarchist but I don't like the definition.

Absence of any form of political authority."-- Dictonary.com

And what I hear is the Anachy is Libritarin/Soclialism. Socialist belive in a strong central govermet and so by definiton it contridicts itself.


I am not opposed to any Anarchists or Communists etc.... But I just dont understand how one can be an Anarchist and belive in a goverment.


Edit: The only things I am opposed to are Nazis/Fasicts (s/p?) and Republicans/Democrats.

/,,/
Rock on!

[Donnie]

You have got the whole thing confused.

Anarchism is just the same as communism, although anarchists don't advacate the transional stage of the "dictatorship of th proletariate" or in other words state Socialism.

Although communists (not all communists) advacate the dictatorship of the proletariate they see it at a transitional stage between capitalism and and communism

You see Anarchism still has socialists idea, by that i mean they want equalityand want to get rid of class opression and want to establish common ownership.

So technically Anarchism is Libertatrian socialism. The reason why its libertarian is becuase they do not advacate state socialism, BUT anarchists still hold the same core concepts of socialism, which is common ownership and working class emacipation etc.

Also Socialism should only be used a transferable stage in order to get from capitalism to communism. But thats me being a marxist.

Also to get an understanding of what people are on about on this forum, read some basic Marxism idea's then read some Anarchist idea's after Marx. Then learn about the different types of communism and anarchism.

Anarchists and communists all hold the same goel and that is to reach a communist society, although anarchists and communists differ in there ways to get there.

Hmm i hope this helps. Im pretty bad at explaining things when i writting it down. Im better at explaining things when im actually talking to someone. :P

[RedLenin]

Welcome Rage. I really hope they dont restrict you I am more than willing to help educate you. I am an anarchist myself. Providing you don't disrupt the board there is no reason why you should not be welcomed here.

Donnie summed it up very well. Remember that socialism does not necessarily mean strong government. Socialism means common ownership and a working class society.

[encephalon]

And what I hear is the Anachy is Libritarin/Soclialism. Socialist belive in a strong central govermet and so by definiton it contridicts itself.

only some socialists believe in a strong central government. I'm best described as a council communist myself, which rejects the idea of a strong central government; rather, it's more of a worker's democracy for society as a whole, by society as a whole.

Socialism itself isn't defined by the role of a strong central government, but rather a state working towards no oppression, common ownership and the equality of all people (with the eventual demise of money). The role of government and the strength thereof is a controversial issue here, as there's a multiplicity of different standpoints. Most communists, at least, that say a strong central authorative government is needed are mostly leninists and the branches that stem directly from it, and although they make up a significant amount of communists they aren't representative of the movement as a whole.

I think mainly you've a little confusion over what different terms mean, really.. two terms put together as one don't always mean the coupling of the meaning of both words, especially when the terms are further confused by the way the meanings change with time.

Based on your posts here, I think it would be very, very dumb for anyone to restrict you even moreso than I thought before, and I'd be openly critical of anyone doing so unless they had a very good reason.

Welcome to revleft, nonetheless.

[Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 08:51 PM
Welcome to revleft, nonetheless.
Thanks man :D


/,,/
Rock on!

[Matthew The Great]

I'm suprised no one has asked to see his Political Compass scores yet.

[Rage]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95


Screen Shot (http://img54.exs.cx/img54/163/scores5li.gif)


/,,/
Rock on!

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

Anarchism does not mean "everyone doing what they want", it means precisely what communism means, a stateless communlaistic society.

Yes - if you wish to live that way. But no one is forcing you to live in a community. Communism can not work without the will of the people to actually live in such a society.


Anarchy does not mean no rules, it means no rulers.

Isn't that communism? Anarchy is, what I see it as, a world in where every man and woman can do exactly whatever he or she wishes. He or she can either live alone, or together with someone. In either way, they are always "self-supported", they can have whatever they like, and so on. And in order for such a world to exist we need "something" to "take care of us". That something, I believe, is robots and nanomachines.


Socialist belive in a strong central govermet and so by definiton it contridicts itself.

On the contrary, socialists believe in a very weak government - how else is it supposed to be for all the workers. Many in the West think that socialism has a very strong government, and of course, since many revolutions have been stalinist - formed after Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, the West have come to believe that this is socialism, communism and other so called "left-wing-governments".

In the real meaning - the people are supposed to check the government, and the government can not excersize power without the will or approvement of the people. That is why democracy is vital to socialism. Any government that excersize power without the approval of the people is simply not socialist. After all, the government is only a tool of the people.

The fact that communism is a "step after" socialism, and in which society has no government, prooves that socialism must have something in common with communism.


But I just dont understand how one can be an Anarchist and belive in a goverment.

Any person can claim anything. Another person can probably be a hard-core nazi scumbag and believe in strong democracy - now, is that possible? I wouldn't understand that.

Anyways, on the left-wing, there are some "stages", in short:

Stalinism - socialism "remade" into Stalin's personal belief and benefit. A dictatorship with a left-leaning economics policy. It is this system that has been in practice in all countries that call themselves "socialist/communist", like the USSR, Vietnam and China.

Socialism - a true society which is based on the people. As I said above, the government can not wield it's power without the approval of the people, which is done through democracy. This system has not yet been seen in action, but some countries/system have come close to it, like for example, Cuba.

Communism - a system without any form of government. This stage will probably come in action when robots and nanomachines are around, which isn't soon. Then, of course, it is also up to people to actually want to have such a society, they must have the will to work for a society which benefits everyone.

Finally, we have anarchism. But, I don't really consider anarchism a form of government or system, in which every person is self-supplied and independent (when it comes down to surviving and living, and probably having whatever one wants to have), which requires much technology to work.


The only things I am opposed to are Nazis/Fasicts (s/p?) and Republicans/Democrats.

The majority of the world is opposed to those systems as well, only sometimes, those systems take on "shapes" so that not everyone can recognize them. Corporations are a very good example of "hidden" fascism.


So technically Anarchism is Libertatrian socialism. The reason why its libertarian is becuase they do not advacate state socialism, BUT anarchists still hold the same core concepts of socialism, which is common ownership and working class emacipation etc.

In short, pretty much every system, except for stalinism, is socialist - the only thing they differ is the "amount of government" and how to reach the ultimate stage - Utopia.


Also Socialism should only be used a transferable stage in order to get from capitalism to communism.

All in all, I too agree with this idea. Of course, the first priority lies with how the people can "take it". For some, drastic and quick reduction of the capitalist society to a stateless society is very new, very changing and not "familiar".

Imagine yourself crashlanding on an alien world, alone, in a spacecraft - and then waking up in an alien hospital, and after some procedures, be integrated in the completely new alien system of living. All the old things are gone. Maybe they are organic, so they don't have computers and high-tech as we know it, but another, "organic-internet", and so on. I don't think any human being would be quick to adapt to sush a society overnight. Some would even turn crazy.

Another example could probably be waking up in the Matrix, well, I hope you get my meaning.

Of course, we as socialists and communists are quick to want a communist society right now, but we have to consider those who live so desperately in our system today. Just like the Matrix, some would be quick to judge the new society and want to return to the old ways.

And not only this, imagine all the so called "renegade" groups - neo-Nazis, fascists, ultra-extreme religious sects. Do you think they conqur with the idea of "the will of the people"?


only some socialists believe in a strong central government.

I believe those people call themselves "stalinists", no?

[rice349]

only some socialists believe in a strong central government.

I believe those people call themselves "stalinists", no?

You've oversimplified this beyond recognition, stalinism refers to a particularly typology, which stems beyond ideology.

[workersunity]

your welcome regardless