Labels and the Left

[MKS]

I will list me set of principles, but I need some help in defining what "ism" I fall under.

I am:

-Against Vanguardism
-For complete destruction of the class system
-Complete destruction of Capitalism and Imperialism
-For non-hirearchical (sp) forms of government /administration
-For Direct Democracy
-Against; Mao, Lenin, Stalin (USSR), Ho Chi Mhin etc
-I admire Che and Castro and the Cuban struggle, although dissapointed with its outcome
-I am for the liberation of S.America from American Imperialism and hegenomy(sp)
-For complete freedom of speech, expression and communication
-Against religion and faith
-For Humanism and logical compassion
-Against armed struggle

That is a short list of where I stand on what issues.
Now what "ism" do I fall under. I am not looking for a textbook answer, more of an opinion from my comrades.

[STABD]

I guess anarchist, because he wants to end class strugle but dosnt want a leader in the proces, liked the revolution but didnt like that it was a socialist revolution, am I right?

[MKS]

am I right?

There is no right or wrong. Just label me accordingly.

Thanks for the input though. Peace

[Reds]

Could be a trotskyist.

Btw what wrong with ho chi mehn?

[Faceless]

vanguardism is meaningless, why dont you like lenin but like che and castro who were followers of his

che was a leninist dont ya know lol.

i would say anarchist but i dont want to be too harsh, personally i dont think it matters

[Amusing Scrotum]

I will list me set of principles, but I need some help in defining what "ism" I fall under.

If you agree with a transitional stage during revolution. Then you are probably a Marxist or Classical Marxist. Your support for Cuba shows you may have some liking for Socialism.
However if you believe there is no need for a transitional state like STABD pointed out you may well be an Anarchist.
You could I suppose be a Socialist Anarchist, if there is such a thing. I've heard of a Leninist Anarchist so nothing would really suprise me.


For Humanism and logical compassion

Maybe you would be best described as a Humanist Marxist or Humanist Anarchist. Though again I don't really know if there is such a thing.

[Amusing Scrotum]

che was a leninist dont ya know lol.

Well no one is faultless. ;)

[Clarksist]

I would say a democratic anarchist.

Just a peaceful anarchist.

But frankly, don't get too caught up in your "ism".

I&#39;ve been called (by intelligent well-read Leftists mind you) that I am an Anarchist, a Leninist, a Maoist, a Council Communist, and I&#39;m sure some things much meaner. <_<

I usually just say I&#39;m a leftist to cover all bases.

[Faceless]

I&#39;ve heard of a Leninist Anarchist so nothing would really suprise me.
It is impossible

unless this is a game I doubt "marxist" can be applied as this refers to a theoretical appreciation of marx&#39;s work, something which can not be read from your post.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I&#39;ve heard of a Leninist Anarchist so nothing would really suprise me.

It is impossible

I&#39;m sure someone on this board uses the term "Leninist Anarchist" as their member title. It does seem a contradiction of ideology, but, each to his own.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:04 PM

I&#39;ve heard of a Leninist Anarchist so nothing would really suprise me.
It is impossible
Someone who believes in a vanguard of anarchist leading a revolution, and then anarchism coming in post revolution.

Maybe a system of soviets, too.

Bada-bing, bada-boom, made a new "ism". :D

[MKS]

Why was this thread moved?

It should go under theory because we are discussing the different theories of the Revolutionary Left. Im not new to it all.

Anyways,

vanguardism is meaningless, why dont you like lenin but like che and castro who were followers of his

che was a leninist dont ya know lol.

Good point. My short answer. Che and Castro and the rest pf the revolutionaries in Cuba formed something closer to "true" Socialism. They werent perfect, but compared to Stalin and the Soviet Union there were 100% better. They have created (more Fidel since he survived) a society that fosters justice, economic equality (closer than the rest of the world) and freedom. however they have grown too centralised and the people instead of relying on themselves rely on the State. True no one is perfect, but Cuba and its leadership both past and present should be appaluded for their effort and contribution to the worldwide struggle. Certain aspects of their idealogy however is faulted.


Maybe you would be best described as a Humanist Marxist or Humanist Anarchist. Though again I don&#39;t really know if there is such a thing.

Proved a point. We are so eager to label a person that we make up new "isms".

My point with this thread was to prove that the Revolutionary Left is bogged down by the "isms". Instead of labeling each other we should focus on our struggle as human beings, part of one race and working towards the same goal. Ideolgy and theory is great but sometimes we become so restricted by the labels we stop any forward movement.

[Zingu]

Left Communist, Council Communist and orthodox Marxist to add a few.

[More Fire for the People]

You sound like an anarcho-pacifist,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Pacifism_vs._War

Anarcho-pacifism is usually associated with Christian anarchism.
You could be an anarcho-syndicalist if you believe that a revolution should come about through a general strike.

[Vanguard1917]

First you say that you are:


For complete destruction of the class system

Then you say that you are:


Against armed struggle

I would say that that is utopianism.

[MKS]

First you say that you are:


QUOTE
For complete destruction of the class system



Then you say that you are:


QUOTE
Against armed struggle




I would say that that is utopianism.

And I would say that opinion is myopic. But lets not get into the Violence V Peace argument.

Nice labels though. Keep them coming.

[Clarksist]

I would say that that is utopianism.


Or impossibilism.


And I would say that opinion is myopic.


Your saying that you point isn&#39;t being thought out, I respect that. But it wouldn&#39;t come down to a Peace vs. Revolution topic.

You said that you want destroy the state peacefully.

Thats a contradiction.

[MKS]

You said that you want destroy the state peacefully.

Destruction usually implies violence, but the violence does not have to be physical. The violence will be from the sudden crumbling of the systems that oppress. Violence against man is not nessecary for the Revolution and destruction to take place. (Again that goes deeper into the Peace vs. Violence arguement).

To call me Utopian for expressing an ideal that you do not agree with, not because there is evidence of the failure of peacful occurence of change, but because, again like many Marxists and Leftists, you revert to the human nature argument which you always oppose when debating cappies. You assume man needs to act violently because that is there nature, that without violence nothing can move forwards. However I assume that humanity can overcome that trait towards violence and create realitivley peacful agents of change and destruction.

[MKS]

I don&#39;t think any communist has made the argument for the need for revolution based on human nature

Its simple; Many Marxits and Communists believe the only revolution will be violent, that violence (against man) is the only way to destroy the Cappie power structre. When you argue against that opinion, Many Marxists/Communists re-state the claim. Leading me to think, well the communists must be implying that humanity only understands violence and war as a means to an end, or an agent of change. If that opinion wasnt held that many Marxist/Communists would allow for non-violent ways of creation of a new society. Marxists argue human nature on one topic or ideal, and argue against it on another topic.

If I am wrong please let me know in detail why. I guess we cant avoid the Violence vs Peace argument.

[bombeverything]

Its simple; Many Marxits and Communists believe the only revolution will be violent, that violence (against man) is the only way to destroy the Cappie power structre. When you argue against that opinion, Many Marxists/Communists re-state the claim. Leading me to think, well the communists must be implying that humanity only understands violence and war as a means to an end, or an agent of change. If that opinion wasnt held that many Marxist/Communists would allow for non-violent ways of creation of a new society. Marxists argue human nature on one topic or ideal, and argue against it on another topic.

The argument that a violent revolution is necessary does not imply that there is a natural defect within human nature. Rather, it merely recognises that the oppressive political and economic structures that we are currently living under make it impossible for the workers to free themselves without a revolution. This is not an individual [or innate human fault], but rather the result of challenging environmental factors.

[Quinlan Vos]

I think Marxist-humanism might be up your ally, check out the writings of Raya Dunayevskaya, Erich Fromm, and E.P. Thompson at www.newsandletters.org and marxists.org.

[MKS]

Rather, it merely recognises that the oppressive political and economic structures that we are currently living under make it impossible for the workers to free themselves without a revolution

Who said that Revolution had to include violence against man? All violent revolutions have failed; USSR, gone, China, a joke, Vietnam, much like China, N. Korea, horribly oppressive, Paris Commune, destroyed, Cuba, admirable but weak. In fact one could argue that a less violent revolution or non violent revolution allows the masses to particpate more within the movement since they do not rely on a military force and leadership. Subsequently it will be the people engagin the change and creating the revolution. Not through war, but through mass demonstration, strikes, etc etc.

True the power structres which oppress are massive, but not invincible. War with them would be never ending. Remember violence begets violence.


Anyways back to the labels.

I dont think you undersrood my point with this thread which was: this thread was to prove that the Revolutionary Left is bogged down by the "isms". Instead of labeling each other we should focus on our struggle as human beings, part of one race and working towards the same goal. Ideolgy and theory is great but sometimes we become so restricted by the labels we stop any forward movement.

We all fit into one category: People. We should fight as people, and die as people and hopefully succeed as people.

[Faceless]

My short answer. Che and Castro and the rest pf the revolutionaries in Cuba formed something closer to "true" Socialism. They werent perfect, but compared to Stalin and the Soviet Union there were 100% better. They have created (more Fidel since he survived) a society that fosters justice, economic equality (closer than the rest of the world) and freedom.

Lenin and Trotsky had nothing in common with the dystopia created by the stalinist bureaucrats. Under these men Russian culture and democracy advanced in leaps and bounds. The wretched conditions in western europe lead to the rise of fascism and mass murder. Russia was in an even worse state. Who is to say that fascism wouldnt have succeeded in Russia had Lenin not dared. Do we really want to consider what the terrors of a fascist russia would have been?

Lenin was the first to set a landmark for the worker&#39;s revolution since the paris commune. To associate his failures and the mass murder which followed is very unfair in my view.

I think most marxists would say "any means necessary" without resorting to the human nature argument. "peaceful if we can; violent if we must."

[MKS]

Lenin and Trotsky had nothing in common with the dystopia created by the stalinist bureaucrats. Under these men Russian culture and democracy advanced in leaps and bounds. The wretched conditions in western europe lead to the rise of fascism and mass murder. Russia was in an even worse state. Who is to say that fascism wouldnt have succeeded in Russia had Lenin not dared. Do we really want to consider what the terrors of a fascist russia would have been?

Lenin was the first to set a landmark for the worker&#39;s revolution since the paris commune. To associate his failures and the mass murder which followed is very unfair in my view

Lenin established the foundation that became the bureaucracy. He was a vanguardist, which in my opinion is a faulted ideology. He did not create a greater society he created a new tyranny.

[matiasm]

i dont have an opinion yet of what "ism" you might be labelled as.

but i dont think you are an anarchist as some might have suggested.

from what your points read, it seems you are against voilence.

anarchism has been known to be characterized as and known for actions as, actively resistant and terrorism against the state.

(but my definition and knowledge of anarchism might of came from a capilatist source, resource or material)

adios, y tengan un buen dia o noche.

[Faceless]

Lenin established the foundation that became the bureaucracy. He was a vanguardist, which in my opinion is a faulted ideology. He did not create a greater society he created a new tyranny.

How can I argue with that? You are stubornly sticking to your guns that he was a vanguardist by ideology and that he created the nomenklature which ruined Russia. So what would you have done in Russia? Presumably you would have sided with the Mensheviks and would have told the workers to just sit it out until the bourgeois had comleted their revolution. Presumably you would have been content to see Russia slip into a state of fascism, never improving beyond its semi-feudal base.

Lenin in fact fought an unyielding war against bureacracy but tell me how, with the failure of the Western European revolutions, was Lenin to honestly create a paradise of democracy in a nation dominated by an illiterate peasentry? Lenin was compelled to form the vanguard he did because of the conditions in Russia at this time. There was only a small working class in Russia, much of it decimated by the war and the civil war. Insipite of this Russia was the freest it had been in all its history at this time. The rise of Stalin and bureaucratic "stalinism" were inevitable in an isolated backward nation like Russia. Stalinist Russia also demonstrated the huge productive powers a planned economy can unleash. The purges and murders which accompanied it were by no means an inevitable part of this industrialisation or indeed of bureaurocracy. The post-Stalin stalinism was a thousand times more preferrable to modern capitalism. The number of people below the poverty line increased by a factor of 10 after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and bureacracy did anything but recede.

Castro has seen the victory of bureacracy in his own life time and has made little or no effort to stop it. The same can NOT be said for Lenin. Having said this, I too would defend the gains of the Cuban revolution.

Having said all this, I am most interested to hear what you think would have been the most successful alternative ideology other than "vanguardism" to drive the Russian Revolution.

[MKS]

Having said all this, I am most interested to hear what you think would have been the most successful alternative ideology other than "vanguardism" to drive the Russian Revolution.

The workers should have established collectives loosley held together in a confederation. Through Direct Democracy the people would decide on economic issues, social issues, ect etc. There never should have been a centralized power structre which gave power over the people and not to the people. His Bolshevik Party stole ruled over the Russian people and sowed the seeds of tyranny. Lenin allowed the creation of dictatorship by alienating the Party from the people. Stalin simply took Lenin&#39;s power grab as example and expanded it with brutal force. During both regimes famine and poverty wreaked havoc on the Russian people.

[the last donut of the night]

I would say a democratic anarchist.

I think that's redundant. I mean, all anarchists are for democracy.:confused:

[ZeroNowhere]

I just destroyed a file on my computer without it shooting me. That's pretty rad.


Or impossibilism.Unfortunately, that term already has a use which has nothing to do with this. So not really. It's also not utopian socialism, and 'utopianism' in other contexts is generally used to refer to wanting the creation of a society which is too good to be true, with means not really coming into it.


My point with this thread was to prove that the Revolutionary Left is bogged down by the "isms".My point with this sentence is that you didn't prove anything. Perhaps that some people don't fit under any exact labels as currently exist (though you would still be filed under 'anarchist', but anyways), and don't have enough people with positions close to theirs (not necessarily a bad thing, it's just that labels for something that only one person believes doesn't make much sense) for it to really merit a label?
But then again, some of these would seemingly merit the label 'anti-labelist'.


You assume man needs to act violently because that is there nature, that without violence nothing can move forwards. However I assume that humanity can overcome that trait towards violence and create realitivley peacful agents of change and destruction.Generally, their views are actually based on the assumption that during a revolution, if the capitalist state still has the army, it can quite easily use it to crush said revolution. Historically, the army and police have quite often worked to put down strikes (along with mercenaries, etc), so it would make sense that a revolutionary movement would have to fight a little. It doesn't have anything to do with man being inherently 'violent' or some crap. Of course, taking on the army doesn't sound like much fun, but the accusation there was rather baseless.


Instead of labeling each other we should focus on our struggle as human beings, part of one race and working towards the same goal.Means determine ends. And labels are convenient, because saying 'I am a De Leonite' is much faster than saying 'I believe in the use of both political organization through partying and economic organization through a Socialist Industrial Union, blah, blah, also heavy metal'. They happen to come about (with some exceptions, like Posadism, where they come about because, well, it's Posadism) due to a significant amount of people having close positions. It's really not much different to 'communism' (which is, for all of you non-doctrinaire people in the crowd, also a doctrine, and adherence to it is as doctrinaire as adherence to a specific current), and I don't see why people tend to act like it is otherwise. As for co-operation between all socialists, this has been gone over before (mainly because every week or so somebody somehow decides to make a thread calling for unity among the revolutionary left), the general consensus seemingly being, "Unity is quite a good thing so long as it is possible, but there are things which stand higher than unity."


I think Marxist-humanism might be up your ally, check out the writings of Raya Dunayevskaya, Erich Fromm, and E.P. Thompson at www.newsandletters.org and marxists.org.Having a hard-on for Hegel is preferred.


We all fit into one category: People.This is bullshit. For a simple example, how about the fact that some people have black hair and others have blonde hair? Please, if you only think the fact that we happen to be human beings is important, that's great (I am not entirely sure what this astounding insight implies, but whatever), but that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to categorize people. I could quite easily say that being humans doesn't fucking matter, let's live as mammals (another category we fit under, btw)! Alright then, and what is this supposed to mean?
Unless you meant 'one category among many' rather than 'only one category', in which case... I'm fairly sure that we are aware that we are human?


from what your points read, it seems you are against voilence.

anarchism has been known to be characterized as and known for actions as, actively resistant and terrorism against the state.Some anarchists blow stuff up. Some liberals also blow stuff up. That does not make 'blowing stuff up' a tenet of liberalism.


I think that's redundant. I mean, all anarchists are for democracy.Yes, generally either direct, consensual, or both in different situations.


Proved a point. We are so eager to label a person that we make up new "isms".Um, you said that you were a humanist, so it would make sense that if you were an anarchist, you would be a humanist and an anarchist, thus a humanist anarchist. It's not a new 'ism', it's a combination of two rather old 'ism's.

Also, please don't waste our time with questions which are supposedly made to 'prove a point'. Just get to the point rather than randomly pretending to be asking a question or don't make the thread, alright?
Though yes, this doesn't belong in learning, since the original questioner did not intend to learn anything, they just made it sound like it. Though it shouldn't go under theory, either, really. To be honest, I can't think of any board more appropriate for it than Chit Chat.

Edit: In other news, gravedigs suck. What the hell. Ah well, I'll just leave this up.

[Nwoye]

first of all, don't feel the need to label yourself to some specific school of socialist thought - just call yourself a socialist. or don't label yourself at all.

going by what you've said here, I would call you a Libertarian Socialist. That's a pretty broad tendency though.