For all of you leftists, communists, etc.

[Totalitarian Militant]

Im not in favor of the left wing.
Im not in favor of the right wing.
Im not facist.
Im not communist.
Im in limbo, or pergatory, if you will.
I am basically in the middle of producing my views now. I just recently got into politics, maybe 3 months ago at the very most. But I do know enough, so dont think Im on a lower level than everyone else.

Now, I want to here from each member, why you choose this affiliation over the other.
Please be descriptive and explain why.

For example, if you want to talk about certain issues, and not just the class struggle. I mean, abortion, gun control, etc etc.

I just want to here the full story from both sides before I truley decide my standing.

Please, explain in your own words, why you choose this path.

And if anyone would be willing to supply a completely right wing site for me to check out, please pm me. Thanks.

[Palmares]

Your asking for an awful lot.

Perhaps a right-wing site could be *************** and I've forgotten the name of the neo-conservative site I used to go to...

Maybe someone will adequetely answer your request here, but I honestly think you are better off looking through the forum for the individual arguements.

What you ask is overwhelmingly broad.

[Note: I may actually decide to answer this to some effort later]

[aztecklaw]

Originally posted by Totalitarian [email protected]pr 22 2005, 02:53 AM
Im not in favor of the left wing.
Im not in favor of the right wing.
Im not facist.
Im not communist.
Im in limbo, or pergatory, if you will.
I am basically in the middle of producing my views now. I just recently got into politics, maybe 3 months ago at the very most. But I do know enough, so dont think Im on a lower level than everyone else.

Now, I want to here from each member, why you choose this affiliation over the other.
Please be descriptive and explain why.

For example, if you want to talk about certain issues, and not just the class struggle. I mean, abortion, gun control, etc etc.

I just want to here the full story from both sides before I truley decide my standing.

Please, explain in your own words, why you choose this path.

And if anyone would be willing to supply a completely right wing site for me to check out, please pm me. Thanks.
Just surf this forum. It has a wealth of information.

[Elect Marx]

Now, I want to here from each member, why you choose this affiliation over the other.
Please be descriptive and explain why.

Alright, I will take a shot at this and if you need more specification, feel free to ask.

I am a non-sectarian leftist and so I don't mind being called a communist or anarchist. As far as the far left goes (revolutionary left), I see that we are all trying to achieve a similar goal (a classless society).

I have become a leftist because I have always been opposed to the injustice ingrained in our society. Basically, people should not be controlled or their rights curtailed. People should not be forced to waste their lives for the luxury of others and people's potential should not be squandered to promote the current system.

I really can't figure out how to be more specific, so ask lots of questions if you like.

[Zingu]

Now, I want to here from each member, why you choose this affiliation over the other.

Because, as I look at the world in an international perspective and not just in the scope of national and local level, I believe that Socialism is the only alternative to solving today's growing problems and capitalism's growing internal contradictions.

Also, I've abadoned simple idealism once I learned Marx's theory of history; seeing that Socialism is not something we should wish for, its something we should fight for, Men make history, not the other way around. I think Socialist ideology (or theory) looks at the big picture, while many other ideologies only concern theirselves with the short term interests of the upper class.

More to come when I can think about it.

[Black Dagger]

Totalitarian Militant

Surely if your username is meant to be a serious reflection of your socio-politco-economic leanings, you'd be considered 'right-wing' or Stalinist?
I don't really the point in this exercise, other members of this board are not you, you should make decisions based on your thoughts/ideas/processes about the various strains of communism/anarchism/marxism/whatever

[OleMarxco]

I chose this afflication because I thought today's consumeristic lifestyles, capitalistic thinking and corrupting society is far too much, and the vision of a REAL communistic society made sense to me and appealed within my very heart - Just what we need these days, something driven by solidarity - NOT profit. That's why ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Have you tried going to The Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org) Online Test to determine exactly where you stand? if not, take it and hurry back and tell us the results.


Totalitarian Militant

Nice name. I'm a Libertarian* Militant myself.

(*Note to Americans; this means I'm in favour of maximum civic freedom, not economic freedom. This is different from a Neo-Liberal)

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 21 2005, 11:02 PM
I don't really the point in this exercise, other members of this board are not you, you should make decisions based on your thoughts/ideas/processes about the various strains of communism/anarchism/marxism/whatever
I agree but I see this as a chance to demonstrate the logic materialist position of leftism.

He is not other members but some members here have valuable viewpoints and experience. I would say though that other members here do not or are confused/ignorant in what they say and I do not completely blame them as we live in societies where truth and intellectualism is not reasonably valued (not to long ago I fit some of the criteria).

I think he is right in searching elsewhere for a "right wing site," as the capitalists here are obviously motivated to come here and attack out efforts. In looking at capitalist interaction here, they provide very little productive discussion and attack other members mostly.

The difference though is that we actually allow capitalists to air their views, where capitalists do not allow for significant counterpoint in their control of the media. Take Fox News as an example: the "left" perspective is center (liberal) and left leaning at best or they put actual leftists on to create conflict without any real content or discussion. I defy anyone to find an actual capitalist/right-wing forum (political forum, that is) where leftists are allowed to discuss issues. The main point is that capitalists cannot rationally justify their positions, so they avoid engaging in legitimate debates or pretend while avoiding core issues.

Really though, looking at "both sides," seems like an objective approach and that is rather impressive. The "Real World" though probably the best place to look for an understanding of the political spectrum but some people are isolated or just looking for other perspectives and this is a good place to look as people can point you in the right direction, though you must always be skeptical (especially in political matters).

"Totalitarian Militant" can still make decisions based on their judgment of the information and I agree they shouldn't just take the statements here as fact but we can provide a certain informational base.

I would say: just watching the discussions here is a good way to learn and find information sources but sometimes directly seeking information is best.

Many people here are willing to help and I will just say that when you look at the political spectrum you don't always have to look past the basic values of any ideology.
Capitalism is about capital or money/property and so capitalists value ownership, basically above all else (politically). Communists value social change and the creation of an egalitarian society to provide for people's needs according to collective ability (without any ruling class or authority figures). Fascists value authority, dogmatism, and interacting through competition/struggle. Lastly, Anarchists promote an-archy: (society) without rulers, basically emphasizing personal liberty through the creation of a society without hierarchy (which is basically communism).

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:27 AM
Have you tried going to The Political Compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org) Online Test to determine exactly where you stand? if not, take it and hurry back and tell us the results.
I haven't taken it in some time:


Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.08

It is a fairly good test but I don't really get why I tested as far to ther right economically...

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Totalitarian [email protected] 22 2005, 02:53 AM
Now, I want to here from each member, why you choose this affiliation over the other.

[. . .]

Please, explain in your own words, why you choose this path.
To begin, I am what could loosely be called a Libertarian-Marxist.

My communism initially grew out a desire for the construction of a social framework, or, rather set of situational fluid frameworks, that would allow for meaningful individuality. This search began around age 14/15, when confronted with the poverty of "individualism" - the inverse, the ideologization and destruction of meaningful individual actualization.

Further development was more practical, and came with a developing understanding of the functioning of class society - of the nuts & bolts operation of capitalism on the most basic levels. A critique of these processes and their interaction with other coercive power-structures (patriarchy, state, etc.), and the historical facts of their activity lead me to communism as the necessary antithesis - the only meaningful challenge to systems of domination and exploitation within the current socio/historical/political situation.

Political compass? My last results were in the vicinity of:

Left/Right: -10
Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.5

[Kurt Crover]

The reason I am left wing (Communist) is because myself, like a lot of people here, want a classless society. The rich should help the poor. The power of the superpowers (US) could help pull many people out of their ruts across the world. But no. They want it all.

[RedAnarchist]

I did the Test -although it isnt brilliantly accurate - and i got -

Economic Left/Right: -9.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54

[Zingu]

I think this phrase can sum it up;


"We don't want a bigger slice of the pie; we want the whole bakery!"


A better test than Political Compass;
www.moral-politics.com

I scored -6, 6, in Extreme Socialism section.

[Rage]

I was a Libiratiarn at first. I chose it because I thought that all people should have the freedom to live and still suffer at there free will. As the great poem "Land and Librity" says:
The freedom to buy things you can never afford,
The freedom for indians to buy corn that once flourished overgrown in their backyards,
The freedom to die of curable disease,
The freedom to watch their children's Stomachs swell and burst,
The freedom to starve and die.

I belived that if it is not your problem you should not help this perosn with the problem and just let them do there own thing.

I then relized most Libritarians are Jackasses and the like.

The mane thing that got me to hateing Capitlism is this:
My grandmother has been paying her bills and taxes all her adult life. THe goverment has decided to put a huge sewage system in her backyard. It would have destroyed her house because the pipe is so huge (A diameter of over 6 feet). There were many ways for them to put the pipe in there with out damiging her house but the Goverment was too narrow-minded to listen. They offered money to her for her house. She said "No this is my land and you cannot offer any amount of money for me to get off". They came back about a month later and destroyed her house :|


Anyways I am currently in the same boat you are in. I dont like the Right but I am not exactly sure what part of the Left I am so I am doing much reasearch. :lol:

I belive Abortion should always be legal if the Woman wishes for it to be done. I belive in the legalization of all drugs and that anyone should be able to buy them and not just a certain age limit. I belive that anyone should be able to have a gun for self deffense purposes (if soemone came into my house I wuld probly blow ther head off :lol: ) .

So I am currently deciding which Left is for me.

Good luck with your search for your political stance :)

And listing to Rage Against the Machine will help you...


/,,/
Rock on!

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 07:39 AM
I think this phrase can sum it up;


"We don't want a bigger slice of the pie; we want the whole bakery!"


A better test than Political Compass;
www.moral-politics.com

I scored -6, 6, in Extreme Socialism section.
I am not so sure; I found it somewhat confusing as I often wanted to specify two answers.
Anyway here is my score:

[Totalitarian Militant]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 22 2005, 05:02 AM

Totalitarian Militant

Surely if your username is meant to be a serious reflection of your socio-politco-economic leanings, you'd be considered 'right-wing' or Stalinist?
I don't really the point in this exercise, other members of this board are not you, you should make decisions based on your thoughts/ideas/processes about the various strains of communism/anarchism/marxism/whatever
Which communist countries so far have had more than one leader?

How many didnt control the media, economy, and more?

[BlastedEmpire]

Disapointment. Disenchantment. Lack of satisfaction from the materialistic world that surrounds me as a youth, that's eating up my generation. One word: neoliberalism. The more I read about it, the bigger the anger. The Clash. Jon Lee Anderson's biography of Che Guevara.
Frankly I think everyone here will end up giving the same answers. I chose this way because I am tired of this growing gap between rich and poor, I'm tired of unemployment and social misery while corporations grow and grow and grow at the expense of exploited peoples in developing countries, I'm tired of promiscuity between politics and money, I'm tired of seeing a whole new generation full of possibilities stuck in the numbing world of MTVs, parties, cell phones and GAP clothing. I am pretty sure my political evolution is not over. It is because I want to continue evolving that I am taking a degree on Political Science. Certain issues aren't as clear and simple as some more zealous militans might make it look. But I am certain of one thing today: it has taken the left road.

[Totalitarian Militant]

As for the political compass thing, some fo the questions are hard to answer.
For example:

I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.
I would support it if it was only right for my country and maybe a few others, but in terms of things like Nazi Germany, I would support it, asI have no racist tendancies.

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.
What do they mean our race?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a fundamentally good idea.
I dont get that one. Explanation please?

Anyway, as of now, I turned out here:

http://img241.echo.cx/img241/8773/myrating2si.th.jpg (http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=myrating2si.jpg)
Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.77
It was pretty surprising actually.
By the way, is neo liberalism like capitalism?

[Zingu]

Originally posted by Totalitarian [email protected] 23 2005, 11:49 PM

Which communist countries so far have had more than one leader?

How many didnt control the media, economy, and more?
Shangahi Commune, Paris Commune, Spanish CNT-FAI Communes, Venezuela (sort of), EZLN in Mexico, Chile.

[NovelGentry]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a fundamentally good idea.
I dont get that one. Explanation please?

This is the maxim of communism according to Marx:


In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

[Totalitarian Militant]

Originally posted by Zingu+Apr 24 2005, 01:49 AM--> (Zingu @ Apr 24 2005, 01:49 AM)
Totalitarian [email protected] 23 2005, 11:49 PM

Which communist countries so far have had more than one leader?

How many didnt control the media, economy, and more?
Shangahi Commune, Paris Commune, Spanish CNT-FAI Communes, Venezuela (sort of), EZLN in Mexico, Chile. [/b]
I have never even heard of those!

Im talking USSR, China, North Korea, Warsaw pact, etc.

Those countries you listed had no major power.
Can you post a link about any of them?

[RedAnarchist]

Its American, but i still took it -

Your Score

Your scored -5 on the Moral Order axis and 0.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches

The following items best match your score:

System: Socialism
Variation: Moral Socialism
Ideologies: Social Democratism, Activism
US Parties: Democratic Party, Green Party
Presidents: Jimmy Carter (95.06%)
2004 Election Candidates: Ralph Nader (95.06%), John Kerry (85.85%), George W. Bush (49.56%)
Statistics

Of the 73178 people who took the test:

0.9% had the same score as you.
32.5% were above you on the chart.
55.7% were below you on the chart.
84.7% were to your right on the chart.
10.6% were to your left on the chart.
Others

Want to understand more what this all means? Then start with the Overview and step through the pages by clicking Next.
For President and Candidates, the percentage measures the distance between you and them where 100% is a perfect overlap and 0% is the longest possible distance.
If you overlap two regions, they are both listed. So if you see both Liberalism and Conservatism, you are a "perfect" Centrist.
See the distribution for all respondents.
Email the link to a friend.
Tell us what you think.

[Donnie]

Originally posted by Totalitarian Militant+Apr 24 2005, 02:44 AM--> (Totalitarian Militant @ Apr 24 2005, 02:44 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:49 AM

Totalitarian [email protected] 23 2005, 11:49 PM

Which communist countries so far have had more than one leader?

How many didnt control the media, economy, and more?
Shangahi Commune, Paris Commune, Spanish CNT-FAI Communes, Venezuela (sort of), EZLN in Mexico, Chile.
I have never even heard of those!

Im talking USSR, China, North Korea, Warsaw pact, etc.

Those countries you listed had no major power.
Can you post a link about any of them? [/b]
Russia, China, N Korea and all the other so called "communist countries" were not communist becuase they had a state and a class.

Most of them communes zingu mentioned were true fighter for communism. The CNT and the FAI and all the others were are true comrades.

The state has its own intrests apart from class intrests, the state belives in divide and rule. We must smash the state in order to liberate ourselves.

[Totalitarian Militant]

Originally posted by Totalitarian [email protected] 24 2005, 01:44 AM
As for the political compass thing, some fo the questions are hard to answer.
For example:

I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.
I would support it if it was only right for my country and maybe a few others, but in terms of things like Nazi Germany, I would support it, asI have no racist tendancies.

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.
What do they mean our race?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a fundamentally good idea.
I dont get that one. Explanation please?

Anyway, as of now, I turned out here:

http://img241.echo.cx/img241/8773/myrating2si.th.jpg (http://img241.echo.cx/my.php?image=myrating2si.jpg)
Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.77
It was pretty surprising actually.
By the way, is neo liberalism like capitalism?
Can anyone still answer that last question?

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Totalitarian Militant+Apr 24 2005, 12:44 PM--> (Totalitarian Militant @ Apr 24 2005, 12:44 PM) Im talking USSR, China, North Korea, Warsaw pact, etc.

Those countries you listed had no major power. [/b]
I think they are a better indication of communistic/anarchist-type societies due to their lack of power, as that is one of the actual points it.


Originally posted by Totalitarian [email protected]
By the way, is neo liberalism like capitalism?


Totalitarian Militant
Can anyone still answer that last question?

Neo-liberalism is a form of capitalism, as it allows economic "freedom"... <_<