Revolutionaries! Leftists! Utopianists!

[novemba]

In my opinion, one of the largest struggles amongst the ranks of leftist ever since the creation of non-conservative thought is disunity. We too often ***** and argue about things that when you step back, are senseless and counter-revolutionary. Even on this board, if we leftists joined forces, and stopped being so critical towards each other we could get a lot accomplished; and this is not a new idea. Back in the times of Marx and Bakunin, the same thing was taking place. So much disagreement over such minor differences took us ten steps back for every step we took forward. We all want a better world. Why can't we accept our differences and go on? Ok, so you believe in reforms, he doesn't. You're a vangaurdist and he's not. I'm a Communist and you're an Anarchist. So what. Redstar once said that action has a way of correcting bad theory, and he is 100% right about that, regardless of what else you think of him. You must keep sight that all our ideas are just that. Ideas. If we keep this up we'll never have a chance to try them out. So you believe that this or that is wrong. Why don't we stop fighting over it and try it, if it doesn't work, we can only move foward! Marx and all his buddies marvelled at how well this was acheived during the times of the Paris Commune, and we can do it again!

Make Marx proud!

Put aside your differences!

Onward and foward until Utopia!

[lennonist-leninist]

I think you are exactly right. We all need to unite if we dont if we all keep on arguing and fighting we will get no where. We all must be comrades in the fight if we disagree if we fight oneanother we will fail. We must join as one we all must join toghether fight the real enemy and not eachother.

[KC]

If you really wanted to do something about it you'd create an organization that is against capitalism, not for some specific philosophy. That would really help.

[novemba]

Well, I was hoping that one day we could take rev-left to bigger, better places.

Revolutionary Leftists Front, hows that sound?

We could have our own internationals, and confrences, etc...

and maybe even pick-up arms one day when we get big enough...

...But, I'm just a dreamer...

[Paradox]

Why can't we accept our differences and go on?


We must join as one we all must join toghether fight the real enemy and not eachother.

Problem is, these differences, some of which you point out, are basically irreconcilable. How on Earth do you plan to get an Anarchist to work with a Stalinist? Anti-authoritarians fighting along side authoritarians? Doesn't seem like that will happen anytime soon, if ever. Alliances could be formed however, between those with similar ideologies. For example an alliance of Libertarian Socialists, such as Council Communists and Anarchists. That sort of thing would be a start, and might do a lot to help with the disunification of the Left.

I know some who say they would support any movement over no movement at all. But for me, an authoritarian movement which will only lead to a new ruling class and never to classless, stateless society, is not something I'm too keen on, to say the least. In underdeveloped nations, reformism is as good as they can hope for, at the moment. They would help to develop their nations, which would then be ready for a true Communist movement. However, in highly developed nations, reformists aren't of much use, because capitalism is already highly developed. What's needed in such a case is a conscious working class, a majority of the population calling for the elimination of capitalism all together, not minor reforms of it. I accept the capability of reformists to industrialize and develop "Third World" nations. But in places such as the u$a, they're basically of no use. The Venezuelan model is a good one I think, for developing nations. Anything authoritarian should be, and hopefully will be, avoided.

[Black Dagger]

Anti-authoritarians fighting along side authoritarians? Doesn't seem like that will happen anytime soon, if ever.

I disagree. I would (as an anarchist) fight alongside a stalinist in a class war. That is inevitable, if there is a revolution taking place, all revolutionary anarchists and marxists who are physically capable should be fighting in that revolution, the 'problems' will only arise after the bourgeois state has been smashed and capitalism destroyed.

[Andy Bowden]

Isn't the danger about working with Stalinists that they'll stab you in the back after the revolution?

(And from a Stalinist perspective, the trots would do the same?)

[comradesteele]

have you read orwells homage to catlonia about spanish civil war?? look what hap[pend then without unity.

[werewolf]

You know, I don't know who some of you are more afraid of, Nazis or your fellow Leftists. I guess I have the benefit of being outside the "mainstream" for so long that I've never become "cliquey" about my beliefs. *Meanwhile peacefully discussing with my Capitalist friend, why the right-wing needs to be removed....and BOTH of us agree*

After the Revolution, if you people want to complain about one another, go ahead, you'll be armed. Since "moderates" outnumber the Stalinists, I think it will be very one sided. (and could be solved peacefully with a good dose of debating)

[Andy Bowden]

Yeah, but weren't the Stalinists attacking the POUM in Spain? Can we realistically expect to work with them?

[Paradox]

I disagree. I would (as an anarchist) fight alongside a stalinist in a class war. That is inevitable, if there is a revolution taking place, all revolutionary anarchists and marxists who are physically capable should be fighting in that revolution, the 'problems' will only arise after the bourgeois state has been smashed and capitalism destroyed.

Yes. I guess you're right. Though I think it would be an uneasy alliance, because both already know that once the capitalists are defeated, the risk of being "stabbed in the back" pops its head out. So yes. I suppose the infighting wouldn't start until after the collapse of the capitalist state.


Since "moderates" outnumber the Stalinists, I think it will be very one sided. (and could be solved peacefully with a good dose of debating)

I suppose it will be, in so far as the Stalinists. They would be somewhat of a non-issue, as they aren't too common, from what I've heard. And I suppose debating with Leninists or Trotskyites would be much easier than with Stalinists. Don't know much about Maoists, but if the RCP is any indicator of MLM, I object. Anyway, the differences are still there. Whether or not the groups can work together post-revolution, I'm not too optimistic.

[werewolf]

Well, the Founding Fathers of the United States were very divided. Hamilton and Jefferson practically hated each other. Hamilton wanted industrialization, Jefferson wanted to remain on the farm. However, they went ahead with the Revolution. (well, probably had Lexington and Concord not happened, their ancestors would be sitting around still fighting)

"We'll never know unless we try."

Generally I stay away from labels, unless it's a broader term. I know what I believe in and there isn't much that would persuade me otherwise.

[novemba]

I know what I believe in and there isn't much that would persuade me otherwise.


M-W.com is a great online dictionary. You can look up the definition of 'close-minded' and get back to us.

[viva le revolution]

The goals of all communist branches are the same. How to get there is the issue. However all advocate revolution. Therefore we should be joined to bring this about.
It's not like wer'e all martians to each other.

[werewolf]

M-W.com is a great online dictionary. You can look up the definition of 'close-minded' and get back to us.

You really misinterpretted what I was trying to say. I can see where you did...poor word choice on my part. If I was so damn close-minded I'd still be sitting around sticking "I Love W" bumper stickers everywhere. I'm saying, I know what I believe in, I keep away from labels, because they aren't accurate in ALL situations. You could label me as a Trotskyist and then some new issue would come up and I'd have the opinion shared by Stalinists. If you know what you believe in and stick to that, then labels are pointless.

[KC]

Yeah sure, turning Revolutionary Left into a revolutionary anti-capitalist organization would actually be a good idea. But that also means that everyone must be involved. Print out flyers for revolutionaryleft.com and put them on windshields. We'll either get a bunch of more capitalists or some allies. Everyone needs to contribute, though. But we also need to organize. Not in a power structure, but everybody needs a job to do. A new section of the board should be dedicated to the group where people can post what they're doing (the practice forum isn't much of that). Maybe redstar could make a site based on our organization and it's ideology (Which would be incredibly broad. "An organization that advocates a revolutionary change in the society we live in to crush capitalism and imperialism.")

[bunk]

I had that idea, to turn RL in to an actual organization! I'm not sure whether malte or other senior members think of it.

[viva le revolution]

An organization that is international. working and campaigning simoultaneously in different countries to change people's attitudes there at the grassroots level.
Yes a lot of work and organization is needed but i think we can have a crack at it.

[werewolf]

Well, it would be easier to create the organzations locally and then use a place like this as the connector. The goal is pretty straight forward so it's not like we'd have people doing completely different things. Also some level of independence would allow the ability to adjust to local situations.

[southernmissfan]

I like the idea of a RL organization. Here's my two cents:

The first order of business should be establishing a local presence, right there in your community. Start a chapter of Food Not Bombs or something similar. Check for any other organizations in the area, or try to found one yourself (Anarchist Black Cross for example).

The radical leftist organizations should be cooperating, and should be working under one front that is loose enough to allow everyone to do their own thing, but still work for collective interests.

These fronts would then work with other fronts in other areas, forming even larger fronts based on their interests (like a Libertarian Socialist Front for anarchists/anti-authoritarians). These large fronts would then participate in a global anti-capitalist, revolutionary community.

Think globally, act locally!

[spartafc]

We could probably all agree on unity - but the practicalities of this are probably harder to live with. Unity with who? To what end?
And of course, unity doesn't mean we should be anything other then very critical - of others and ourselves.

[werewolf]

Think globally, act locally!
Great quote Southern.

And considering some of the organizations might not act very peaceful, if they did something and failled, their relationship could easily be denied. This is kind of like the stucture of a Revolutionary group pioneered by the Russian Anacharists in the late 19th Century, it's been used over and over again.

[novemba]

You really misinterpretted what I was trying to say. I can see where you did...poor word choice on my part. If I was so damn close-minded I'd still be sitting around sticking "I Love W" bumper stickers everywhere. I'm saying, I know what I believe in, I keep away from labels, because they aren't accurate in ALL situations. You could label me as a Trotskyist and then some new issue would come up and I'd have the opinion shared by Stalinists. If you know what you believe in and stick to that, then labels are pointless.

My fault werewolf...but now I see it your way. I agree completely, and that's even more reason to unite. We all have the same goal, why not work together on it? And whose to say that when we acheive succesful revolutions people couldn't have a choice between anarchist, stalinist, libertarian communists, etc etc? We could all have our own communes, and those who believe in it can live with people the agree with...and the world would be a perfect place...

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

[KC]

I'm wondering how redstar's feeling about this idea and if he'd be willing to support it.

[redstar2000]

Here is at least a sketch of what you're up against...

Unity on the "Left"? (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082988280&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Imagine a room full of people from RevLeft -- and we wanted to decide on a practical activity. Consider the kinds of arguments that would be made for and against each proposal...the kinds of arguments that, in fact, take place on this board now.

How would it ever be possible to reach a decision that would even win a majority?

What I notice on this board are constantly shifting "alliances". Sometimes, for example, I find myself agreeing with (some) of the "Marxist"-Leninists. Other times, I line up with (some of) the anarchists. I don't think that's a product of "my petty-bourgeois vacillation" -- because all of you do it too. All of you enthusiastically agree with someone's views in one thread and then vehemently disagree with that same person in another thread.

What this reveals, to me, is that there really is no "unity" on the "left" at this time. Even "anti-capitalism" is not "universal" on this board -- some people here would just like to make it more humane and less oppressive.

The one thing that nearly all of us here agree on is that the future of the "left" depends on ideological struggle -- on the confrontation between what we perceive as "good ideas" and "bad ideas".

We argue with each other...and do so vigorously. As a consequence, readers may sometimes be provoked to change their minds...and their actions in "the real world".

Ideas that lead to action have real world consequences...even if it takes a very long time for that to happen.

By all means "do something" to resist the despotism of capital -- but the more informed you are of why you are doing X and not Y or Z, the more effective you will be.

And that's why this board exists...so that each of us can make informed choices.

And not just flail and stumble about "like blind people".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Clarksist]

Just as Red Star 2000 said, our arguing makes us "better" Lefties.

Just because we argue over many of the issues, however, doesn't mean that we aren't together on the big one: Anti-Capitalism.

To claim that unity is a group of people not arguing isn't really the GOOD kind of unity. It is the blind type. Which in itself is counter-revolutionary.

You can't win at losing sometimes. ^_^

[KC]

I think we can all agree on anti-capitalism. And that's what we're talking about here; creating a revolutionary anti-capitalist organization where everybody with different ideologies can unite under a common front. We can still debate but we will all agree on the need for a revolutionary change to destroy capitalism.

[Commie Rat]

the lack of people in certain areas would be a major weakness if this site were to to off line and into the real world- just from personal experice i only know 4 people from Aus. on this board - there might be more i dont know.

[Oglaigh na hEireann]

I also strongly agree with your thesis. If there is any progress to make, then we must disregard our differences and work together, for a common goal of change. But for that to work, there wouuld have to be some differences in ideology that might have to be looked after, because if you have say revolutionaries, leftists and utopianists all fighting, by the time the main goal has been accomplished, then how will those difference ideologies work together even though they completely contradict the other.



-Sean

[KC]

You're not supposed to look that far ahead! We'll cross that bridge when we get there.

[Holocaustpulp]

The idea of general unity has always been present in spontaneous revolutions, such as the Paris Commune. However, organized unity (i.e., active unity and not just ideological agreement) could serve as a powerful tool for the leftist movement. But then the problem we come across is the factional disputes. Perhaps among Marxists the issue could be solved by worker's democracy, yet then how would anarchists be dealed with after the revolution? It seems as if they wouldn't be willing to partake in any democracy at all, for that represents a still existing state.

There are many questions to ask concerning organized unity; while indeed it would broaden our social base, it also still reeks varying methods among sects. I say I am all for an organized left - however, I am not for relinquishing my Leninist principles.

- HP

[werewolf]

Well I checked with my organization. We have one Stalinist, two "normal" Socialists, two Marxists, an Anarchist, and a Socialist who borders on Anarchist. We get along quite fine. The only problem we have is finding a time when all of us have off of work so that we can get organized. Other than that we get along quite fine. We've developed a loose Democracy, I say loose, because two of us generally are the "brains," however, we try to blend everyone's ideas. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but we get along so it's not like we hate each other if one plan isn't used.

[Holocaustpulp]

The thing I would be most lenient about would definitely be the means of revolution, a stage which all leftists should be most concerned about. To deny a worker's revolution just because it doesn't coincide with Marxist, Maoist, etc., plains of thought is ridiculous - all leftists must accept and embrace a revolution for what it is, and not how it happened.

- HP

[novemba]

If arguing on the internet makes us better leftists, imagine what would do in person...

I'm not quite asking for a revolutionary organization now, I'll I'm saying is we should have meetings between all of us revlefters, something like the internationals, except better. If the time comes and we work well enough together then I'm down for fighting alongside you guys, but I seems you have some petty differences that need to be worked out firt. Most of all, what I'm suggesting is a new branch of leftism in which we would combine our thoughts into a new utopian philosophy. We could draw from the classics, and even add our own ideas. Not only would this help us unite, but its solves the issue for those of you who agree with different parts of different doctrines of marxism and or anarchism.

What do you think?

[werewolf]

Well probably not Utopian...that's where we get on each other's throats. "I WANT IT TO HAPPEN THIS WAY!" "WELL WHO ASKED YOU?" We should come up with a practical design first.

[novemba]

yeah, but the basic idea is what matters...anyone up for it?

[werewolf]

Well how do you want to do it? We could have just one person who is fairly moderate create a plan and then allow us to discuss it and vote to modifty etc. Or we could create a committee to work on it. Another idea would have all of us working on it, but eventually that might end up getting confusing. (it doesn't work too well in an online forum situation)

[redstar2000]

You may find some of the ideas in this piece useful...

A New Type of Communist Organization (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083205534&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[werewolf]

Yeah that is very a good piece. I especially like the idea to not use the term "party."

[novemba]

to werewolf:

I think we should all meet in person in order to get it off the ground. You can't just make an organization like that over the internet, especially not for everyone to see.

[werewolf]

(it doesn't work too well in an online forum situation)
I was referring to everything pretty much. I'm currently one step ahead of this thread, so we'll just wait for everyone to catch up.

[Warren Peace]

Necro is exactly right. Dogmatism is a big problem here. I try to be a voice of unity, but it never works out well.

In a thread about Kim Jong, I pointed out similiarities between anarchism, Maoism, and Trotskyism. Everyone got mad that I was suggesting their glorious ideology had something to do with "authoritarianism" or "revisionism" or whatever. I ended up having to argue with all three sides.

We need to put aside our differences! We should all be comrades in a revolutionary United Front against capitalism and imperialism! :hammer:

A good foundation for a Untied Front would probably a system where everyone agrees on three values:

1) Socialism: The people should control the industry.

2) Democracy: The people should be empowered.

3) Humanism: Human life should be valued.

Fair?

[novemba]

I agree. But we need a new name for our new ideology.

what's latin for people? or democracy? if thats not latin already... :blink: :lol:

[Paradox]

But we need a new name for our new ideology.

New ideology? Or new organization that works with any Leftist? The various groups are all Communist, but they disagree on how to get to Communism. Your ideology isn't new. And your idea isn't new either, it's just that most people don't agree with it. I'm not saying you shouldn't try, but to say it's a "new ideology" is a flawed statement. Though I personally, am not too optimistic about how far you'd get, I'm interested to see what you might accomplish, and wouldn't mind being proved wrong.

[novemba]

I think you took me too literally, but your statement got me thinking.

Of course this new group would feed off of old theory, but there's just something about all the other aspects of eglitarianism that makes me feel like we need a new discipline in order to more easily carry out this revolution.

Sure Marx and whoever else was right, but if the majority of the oppresed people don't know that he was right, or even who Marx is, isn't that a critical flaw in the theory itself?

[viva le revolution]

The differences between the Leninists, trotskyites, maoists and anarchists are only superficial, all of them have a similar goal, just how to reach there is the problem, all advocated revolution, so by the theory themselves all should should be united in bringing about revolution, all favour anti-capitalism and the overthrow of it through revolution. The differences between them are petty and have more to do with conflicting egos than anything else, involving personal attacks and the 'holier than thou' attitude.
It's just pointless to continue bickering amongst ourselves since that works in favour of the status-quo, something we all oppose. quite pointless really!

[werewolf]

I agree. But we need a new name for our new ideology

We've spent the last two years trying to come up with a name. The first name we thought about was Free Democratic Socialists, but we opted out of that one. Currently we call ourselves the Leftist Revolutionary Front of Middletown, but even that doesn't sound right. We've even thought of using the term "Oakesists" after the pen name I write under.

The name needs to describe what we do and it also needs to be people-friendly. (sound good, welcoming)

[Paradox]

Sure Marx and whoever else was right, but if the majority of the oppresed people don't know that he was right, or even who Marx is, isn't that a critical flaw in the theory itself?

I'm not so sure I'd call it a flaw, as much an obstacle. When Marxism or Anarchism, etc., are mentioned in school, they're usually portrayed as flawed and failed ideologies. So for the students who pay attention, most will come to view the Leftist ideologies as "bad." The other students who don't pay attention won't know anything about the ideologies or people who theorized them. And the media also portrays Communism as flawed and failed in the way it equates so-called Communist countries like Cuba, China, N. Korea, etc., with the idea of Communism.

This is not to say people cannot learn the truth about Communism. Obviously, that is possible, seeing that we are here discussing it. People can check out books from the library, they can buy books, use the Internet, etc.. So it is possible. The key is getting people to the point where they are interested enough to learn what Communism really is. It's quite a task, to say they least. But not impossible. It'll just take work.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:49 PM


The name needs to describe what we do and it also needs to be people-friendly. (sound good, welcoming)
I know this may sound corny at first but what about, Rvolutionary worker's co-operative union.

[novemba]

It needs to be something simple.

Words we like:

Workers
Leftist
Revolutionary

HOW ABOUT THE SEEDS OF DESRUCTION!

haha. just playin.

[Paradox]

Revolutionary Liberation Front?

Bickering Leftists League? :lol: only joking.

[Commie Rat]

Workers Alliance- an amalgamtion of all the poleritant across the globe and all left wing ideology.

[Weidt]

Any unity must be based on principle. Without principle, no organization could survive. One-hundred strong, principled and effective socialist organizations are better than one weak, unprincipled and ineffective socialist organization. The existance of multiple organizations is not the problem. The problem is when these organizations refuse or fail to cooperate where they do agree and can be more effective together.

Let's keep in mind we are ultimately united in a movement, and movements are never homogeneous. The working class is not homogeneous and will have separate organizations with different principles, tactics and goals.

And I can't help but chuckle at this notion of combating disunity and criticizing the existance of multiple organizations by calling for the formation of a new organization. If you want to form a new organization along principled lines different from any existing organization, then so be it, but it is ludacrious to believe by setting up a new organization you'd be fighting disunity.

[novemba]

ahhh. nay-sayers.

[Commie Rat]

And I can't help but chuckle at this notion of combating disunity and criticizing the existance of multiple organizations by calling for the formation of a new organization. If you want to form a new organization along principled lines different from any existing organization, then so be it, but it is ludacrious to believe by setting up a new organization you'd be fighting disunity.

I see your point but i feel that they are trying to push a merger of oganizations rather then a new one

[novemba]

if nothing else at least we could work together.

we really do need to have a revleft conference.

[viva le revolution]

I agree. A common platform where we could all meet and understand each other a little better making way for furthur cooperation. i mean we have so many users etc etc. i mean if we could take it out of mere posting on the internet and take it into the next level.

[werewolf]

*looking at a completely pointless debate on another thread* Hopefully we can discuss the important things and get those established. Because with some of the debates I see from time to time on here, I think somebody might end up decking somebody.

[black]

There's nothing to discuss, munchkins.

If you're serious about class war and taking an active part in that (rather than spending that time online in REVORLTUION!!!ANARKY!1 forums) then you'll discover that there are massive differences as to how to approach that and to what our goals are. "Leftists Unite" is an empty slogan that never works outside the imagination of a pre-pubescent wannabe guevarist. The biggest split; between authoritarians and libertarians, can be resolved as easily as the split between the proletariat and bourgeoise. There's more than one enemy.

[Ultra-Violence]

I agree with unity of the left, and if we were to start an organization I believe its main focus should be about educating the working class people. But not about political ideologies(then the organization would be arguing about witch ideologies should be followed or taught) but about the horrors of capitalism and Yankee imperialism that way the people will rise up and destroy capitalism :hammer:

[novemba]

"Leftists Unite" is an empty slogan that never works outside the imagination of a pre-pubescent wannabe guevarist

Imagination. What a funny word.

I often imagine a world where everything is peaceful, there are no oppresed people, and everyone is fed and happy. People love each other, and people love the world. There are no starving kids. There are no meaningless deaths. We all work together in perfect unity.

or maybe I'm just a 'pre-pubescent wanna be guevarist'.

::GANGSTA ALERT::


pre-pubescent wanna be guevarist

Your mom and you sister could both refute that arguement.
I'd like to see you say that shit to my face. See you at the conference mofucka.


Originally posted by werewolf
somebody might end up decking somebody

[black]

I often imagine a world where everything is peaceful, there are no oppresed people, and everyone is fed and happy. People love each other, and people love the world. There are no starving kids. There are no meaningless deaths. We all work together in perfect unity.

very sweet, moving on to reality you might find striving for a better world slightly more complex than you had anticipated. But you can discover that for yourself...when you grow up.

It is also helpful to understand why there is a lack of unity in "The Left".

[novemba]

If we lose our dreams, what else do we have?

I can't help that I'm an idealist, but I'll always be looking for progression and evolution, not just what seems realistic. I've always been told to stand up for what I believe in, and not to settle for anything less. And I listened.

Honestly, if we all want a better world and true equality for everyone, I don't see why we disagree and bicker so much. Maybe I need it explained, so does anyone wanna give it a shot?

[black]

Read;

*Idealism
Marx (despite being a shit socialist who takes credit for a lot of things other socialists have developed) on the difference between Idealism and Materialism.
Emma Goldman on real but disimilar Idealism and what the means in terms of Struggle.

*Historical examples
Spanish Civil War, the conflict not only between fascists and "Republicans", but also between Stalinists, Trotskist-style factions and Anarchists.
The Russian Revolution and the consequent crushing of Anarchists, Libertarians, the Workers Opposition and finally the "Left" Opposition.

Idealism should always be coupled with realism or it is in fact pointless. I will spell it out for you;

There is no one left. We cannot be united because "we" are not united. What makes us different is how we live, our tactics, our motivations and ultimately our goals. As an anarchist there can be no unity with authoritarians, state capitalists, reformists, statists. We're past caring about the old Left.

[KC]

Idealism as in nothing exists outside our senses?

[black]

No you're thinking of Idealism, but in terms that ideas or mind are the fundamental nature of reality. As opposed to Materialism which is that matter is reality and everything else seemingly non-physical (your thoughts, feelings and ideas) can be explained by this. The idealism here is where one tries to live by their ideals and visions of a better society. Sometimes, however, they can get mixed up even unintentionally where utopianism comes into it. (ie. you dont look close enough into the real material circumstances to achieve any semblance of your idea, which becomes more important than what we have.) You aren't grounded in a scientific understanding but an almost Idealistic one.