Why did you choose the theory to follow?

[Abood]

This is a thread to discuss why you follow the theory you follow.
For example, if you're an anarchist, why? If you're a marxist, why?
I will start...
I am a libertarian marxist
That's because authoritarian has proven, in history, to turn into corruption. Whenever someone gets power, he/she becomes corrupt and uses that power to satisfy him/herself. We need a society where there is no one leader, but many leaders - the proletariats! We need to educate them and let them know how to run themselves, instead of being dependent on others. The whole point of socialism is to give workers power, so why have someone who has power over them?! In order to achieve class communism we need to prove to them that they can rule themselves and that they can be independent and work for themselves and by themselves.

Now let's go to anarchism..
. If there was no leader, then someone with power will have to take the throne, it's what people always do! They want power! But if there was a huge group of people leading society, then everytime someone tries to take over they will throw him down.

[Orthodox Marxist]

I am a libertarian marxist
That's because authoritarian has proven, in history, to turn into corruption. Whenever someone gets power, he/she becomes corrupt and uses that power to satisfy him/herself. We need a society where there is no one leader, but many leaders - the proletariats! We need to educate them and let them know how to run themselves, instead of being dependent on others. The whole point of socialism is to give workers power, so why have someone who has power over them?! In order to achieve class communism we need to prove to them that they can rule themselves and that they can be independent and work for themselves and by themselves.

I agree Comrade I also advocate a centrally planned economy.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I would not label myself as anything, although I have Marxist leanings. I am in part Marxist because it is a favourable, sustainable approach to society for furthering of happiness and intellectual development.

As part of an intellectual approach I can also better defend my Marxist leanings than anything else, and this suggests to be that is the best I have come accross. I do not "follow" Marxism, rather I take from it the aspects that I think are useful. If there is an aspect of Marxism I think is wrong, then I will invoke another theory to explain this, Marxism does not have to be a whole package deal.

I am not sure what you are saying about anarchism there, it seemed a little jumbled.

[Djehuti]

I don't really follow a certain communist theory, I rather use it. And I use the theory I find most fit to analyze and to bring clarity and give advice at a given situation in the class struggle.

Most often Marx' theories, and theories developed by left communists and other ultra-leftists. They appeal better to my own situation in society.

[loveme4whoiam]

Indeed, I've never got on with set names for different theories or anything for that matter, partly because don't understand what each of them advocate in detail to say that that is what I believe. This extends to other stuff with sub-categories, like music (what's the difference between indie and alternative, rock-funk and whatever :wacko:). I simply know what I believe in and try and fit other things around that. But going by your first post, I'm a libertarian marxist as I agree totally with what you say.

[ComTom]

I believe in a centrally dictated economy with a centralized goverment. This goverment would consist of a coalition of worker parties that represent worker councils. I am a hater of all Stalin lovers, aka Stalinists. I am above all, a anti-authortarian and anti-fascist. But I despise the belief of anarchism as a purely utopian belief. Anarchism will never succede, it has never succceded in the history of man because man cannot live without state. State is the creation of man himself, and just in the case of the year of world primitivism, anarchism will fail because a new ruling class will again arise from the ashes of anarchism.

[Abood]

I don't really follow a certain communist theory, I rather use it.
Yes, ofcourse! That's what I meant :blush:
Marxism is not a religion - you don't follow it blindly.

[chuq]

I think that most new socialist are not marxist until someone translates it into the language they readily understand. No matter what you call yourself you always return to Marx, he started it and Lenin perfected it.

I am a Leninist who believes that all the masses need is a good example thayt they can relate to and then choose their course.

But no mtter what you call yourself, a society with justice for all is the main goal.

[greymatter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 02:21 PM
No matter what you call yourself you always return to Marx, he started it and Lenin perfected it.

I am a Leninist who believes that all the masses need is a good example thayt they can relate to and then choose their course.
Right, Lenin was somehow "more capable" of setting a "good example" than the rest of us. Why would that be? Aside from his impeccable taste in facial hair, I can't see a single reason why we should follow the "teachings" of Lenin, Mao, or any other so-called "great leader". After all, Lenin grew up in a remote, central russian province under medieval conditions! By modern standards, his veiws would be labeled as socially conservative!

Why would you want to cast a fallible human being in such a positive, uncritical light? That reminds me of how a catholic might talk about the pope!

[obliterate_the_state]

I'm an anarchist who takes influence from Syndicalism, Green Anarchism, Mutualism, Individualism, Egoism, Collectivism, ParEcon, Marxism, Zapatistas.

I'm an anarchist because I believe we should organize to build and construct and never to restrict. Authority corrupts and whenever someone comes into a position of power they will use it to their benefit- I have countless times in the past, now days I make sure not to be a central authority. I understand that there are charismatic people and that they may "lead" society in some ways, even in anarchism, but it is the institutionalizing of authority I am against. I think we need to build a society in which every member is responsible and knows that they are the authority of themselves and will never relinquish this authority. In extreme situations people may need to be dealt with when they act irrational, but this should be taken care of by a community meeting of concerned individuals, and never should the results be made into law. Law is fundamentalism.

I'm a market socialist/mutualist because I don't owe anyone anything but myself and those that I share mutual aid with. The profiters of my labor are capitalists whether they are a community that holds control of my product or an actual bourgeois capitalist. I am not opposed to collectivist tendencies in some areas of my life- transportation, for example. But I think people need to choose that for themself.


I'm also interested in sustainable living- permaculture, bikes, veganism, etc. and libertarian population control through education. THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE TO BE SUSTAINED. Capitalism has made a product of children- they're good for welfare mothers, laborers, etc.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I am an anarcho-communist who takes inspiration from many leftist philosophers. However, I advocate decentralization rather than centralization. Anarcho-communism is just a higher form of communism, in my opinion, and it is a form by which the proletariat does not become the victim of centralized power, which inevitably finds its way into the hands of the corrupt or corrupts those who originally had good intent.

[violencia.Proletariat]

No matter what you call yourself you always return to Marx, he started it and Lenin perfected it.

Nothing Lenin did was "marxist". When did Marx ever say countries just emerging out of fedualism can have a dictator for a while and become communist?


I am a Leninist who believes that all the masses need is a good example thayt they can relate to and then choose their course.

For those in countries who arent REALLY backwards, no one chooses Lenin.

[cyu]

THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE TO BE SUSTAINED. Capitalism has made a product of children- they're good for welfare mothers, laborers, etc.

The problem is that capitalism has created too many people doing stuff for the wealthy. Imagine capitalists regularly paying millions of dollars for paintings. The result is that they are suddenly "supporting" an entire industry of people in the fine arts world, from auctioneers to environmental engineers making sure the painting is kept in a pristine atmosphere. [The real people supporting this industry, of course, are the farmers, home builders, power company workers, etc.]

There aren't too many people if everyone was working to serve the average person instead of the wealthy. More food could be produced, more homes built, more health care available, etc etc. It would only be limited by technology how many people the earch can support.

I think even more people could be supported if we made use of marine agriculture - but how many people are in these fields of research? You can't make much money serving the poor if they don't have the money to pay you. Instead we have people researching the best way to wipe the butts of the people rich enough to be in the market for automatic toilets.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:53 PM
I believe in a centrally dictated economy with a centralized goverment. This goverment would consist of a coalition of worker parties that represent worker councils. I am a hater of all Stalin lovers, aka Stalinists. I am above all, a anti-authortarian and anti-fascist. But I despise the belief of anarchism as a purely utopian belief. Anarchism will never succede, it has never succceded in the history of man because man cannot live without state. State is the creation of man himself, and just in the case of the year of world primitivism, anarchism will fail because a new ruling class will again arise from the ashes of anarchism.
"State is the creation of man himself"

WTF? that makes no sense. In fact, you'r entire post makes no sense. Why would we ever advocate anything 'centralized' ever again? Have you ever studied 20th century history?

" This goverment would consist of a coalition of worker parties that represent worker councils"

Yes, sure it would!
Because we all know that those parties will represent us well! You Leninists and your silly dogma! :lol:


As far as what I am, I would say I am a communist first and foremost. I do think I have some anarchist leanings, simply because I feel nothing but contempt for the state, however.

[wet blanket]

:) I don't follow any theory.

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 3 2006, 05:28 AM
:) I don't follow any theory.
Well, I think you follow "wet blanketism"? :(

[Kropotkin]

I'm an Anarchist. I've always felt that the way the world is at present needed to be changed. So I began researching different political theories. Anarchism is the political philosophy that I had most in common with.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think I really follow a "prescribed theory" for revolution. I just make my own synthesis.

[LunarJunk89]

I don't follow any specific theory, but as others have said- I like, and agree with some of the aspects of these theories. I suppose I lean towards the (liberal)socialist territory, but I'm not a big fan of labels.

I always thought that the U.S 'democracy' would benefit if it fused certain socialist,communist, and anarchist philosophies to the system. I honestly don't see a full-blown marxist/communist or anarchist society working.It's a bit too idealistic, in my opninion.

[RussianAnarchist]

I am anarchist, because I do not believe in any governments, I do not believe that modern democracy actually can be benefit to people, and not be tool for the personal enrichment and the unhuman activity. Moreover, modern democracy always seemed me unsafe and for me personally that it is already entirely unpleasant. :) For a long time my hostility to democracy did not find a design way out (I even nearly it did become monarchist in the search of other possibilities of the device of state :) ), until I understands that the anarchy - is reality, but not utopia. I am not convinced supporter of any anarchy theory. Any forms of human associations, based on the anti-capitalist and anti-hierarchical principles, from my point view, have right to existence. If we speak about that form of anarchy, which, as me it seems, most real, then I think that the society of future will be partially anarchy-communist, and partially with preserved private property of the means of labour and small business, but by the unconditional prohibition of any monopolies and useless for society means of enrichment.

[Hiero]

When did Marx ever say countries just emerging out of fedualism can have a dictator for a while and become communist?

When did Lenin say that, or attempt that?

[More Fire for the People]

I would not say I follow a definitive theory as of yet because I am still in the process of learning [or overcoming]. Marxism-Leninism once accused me of changing my ideology every week and I agree. I scoffed at him but now I agree wholeheartedly. I've discovered the source of my problem, my internal contradiction, and I've take steps to overcome it.

That said, I would say I am a "Marxist-Luxemburgist" if anything. However, I draw influence from Sartre's existentialism and Gramsi's Leninism as well.

[obliterate_the_state]

The problem is that capitalism has created too many people doing stuff for the wealthy. Imagine capitalists regularly paying millions of dollars for paintings. The result is that they are suddenly "supporting" an entire industry of people in the fine arts world, from auctioneers to environmental engineers making sure the painting is kept in a pristine atmosphere. [The real people supporting this industry, of course, are the farmers, home builders, power company workers, etc.]

There aren't too many people if everyone was working to serve the average person instead of the wealthy. More food could be produced, more homes built, more health care available, etc etc. It would only be limited by technology how many people the earch can support.

I think even more people could be supported if we made use of marine agriculture - but how many people are in these fields of research? You can't make much money serving the poor if they don't have the money to pay you. Instead we have people researching the best way to wipe the butts of the people rich enough to be in the market for automatic toilets.

Sure, I think there are markets aimed specifically at capitalists- expensive pleasure boats, bourgeois cars, and yes, even expensive artwork. I think production should be in the hands of the workers. I am not anti-communist. You can do what you want in your community. I'm not ready to put entire faith in a gift economy. I think the workers (in co-ops or independent) should be able to exchange their product on a market, because it makes sure that you are getting what you put in in return.

I think marine agriculture would be necessary in a century or two, but I think it should be avoided because of the environmental cost. I think efforts should be made to make vasectomies more affordable, and permaculture and respect for nature needs to be introduced.

I don't like the highly industrialised consumer markets of today. I think markets would be alot safer in an anarchist scenario because people would understand the work put into things. Especially since sweatshops wouldn't be used! I'd like to see the social abolition of non-vegetable non-permanent plastics. Not through laws, but through community education and understanding that waste/pollution affects everyone. Basically a withering out of past mistakes made by the bosses profiting from it.

[Roses in the Hospital]

I'm a socialist primerly because of the values I was brought up to have. After that it is simply the influence of what I've read and the problems I see in the world...

[chuq]

I believe it was Marx who said, "You have to go thru 15, 20, 50 years of civil war and international struggle not only to change the international situation, but to change yourselves, and make yourselves fit for political power."

I believe that Lenin expounded on this to come up with the theory of the Vanguard, to lead the masses thru this period of transformation and then with the transformation complete it would be a classless society, a communist society..

I guess to answer your question I am a Leninist.

[redstar2000]

I am the world's only "redstarist". :P

Which means I'm willing to steal a good idea from anyone who has one. :lol:

Mostly, I steal from Marx...but if I run across a useful idea from somebody else, I'll have it before you can say "stop thief!".

I don't respect "intellectual property rights". :D

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

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I'm a communist because I'm a proletarian, and it's in my interest to fight for communism.

[vox_populi]

Im not really "tied" to any ideology...but I base my worldview on Marx's analyzises...so You could call me a marxist...but i'm not sure if Marx would call me that :P

I'm brought up with leftist values like everyones equality and stuff like that.
Both my parents are members of The Communist Party so they have alot of leftist literature that I could read.

I'm still forming my political stance, and for the moment I feel that de-centralization is the most important thing to make socialism work...but as I said i'm still questioning and reevaluating my ideas as I go.

So you'll probably find me defending ideas and opinions that I later oppose strongly...I've found that one of the best methods to test your opinion is to try to debate for or against alot of different stances. And then you see what arguments you agree with the most...
So i'll probably change my opinion completely many times during my time here...

[Dyst]

I'm an idiot who dislikes "following" a theory because it reminds me too much of following a religion or anything like that.

I am also that kind of idiot who thinks the societies will evolve into communism because of economic and social needs, therefore I do not believe in any revolutionary political organization (unless it is to represent this change in particular, which I do not believe any will be capable of). And I believe any attempt at a revolutionary political organization, while it may have its necessary purposes, at this point is unable to establish a working communist society.

Note, I do not believe in "evolution" as opposed to revolution. I believe there will be revolutions where the people will be forced to fight against the forces of capitalism. Yet I believe this will happen, in the first place, because of an "evolutionary" necessity for change.

[LoneRed]

Marxism, has been the only theory that has correctly analyzed the modes of production, and the history of societies thus far. It is the only one with a scientific method. Anarchism, if it at all tries to be scientific it is because it uses part of marxs ideas. Anarchism is a petty-bourgeois theory that doesnt have a base in the correct operations of society.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Anarchism, if it at all tries to be scientific it is because it uses part of marxs ideas. Anarchism is a petty-bourgeois theory that doesnt have a base in the correct operations of society.

So what? Platformists ususally follow Marx's analysis on class and history because IT'S CORRECT. Does it make us petty-bourgeois? NO. Theres nothing wrong with taking things which make sense and putting them together with other things that make sense.

[Sentinel]

Before I did any deeper reading on communism, and learned to understand some historical materialism, I used to be a really authoritarian socialist type.

What has made me change my mind is the conviction that capitalism will create the right circumstances for it's destruction and make the proletariat revolutionary and enlightened enough to build communism.

I still believe a transition is necessary, but only a very short one, and for other reasons I did before.

I think the circumstances will determine the right method for a revolution. The more unadvanced the society is, and the more unaware the proletariat, the more centralisation is needed initially to keep the revolution ongoing.

In other words, the earlier it happens, the longer a transition phase is needed.
This is propably why Lenin was so convinced of the need for a vanguard in Russia 1917. His revolution was way too early to possibly lead to communism!

I'm fairly convinced that when the important revolution, the one that'll succeed to spark the world revolution, happens (in the industrialised countries, of course) the proletariat will be aware enough to do without the leaderhip of a vanguard party.

I do think the revolution will need some amount of centralisation in the first years, a state and a government. :(

But any revolutionary government that wanted my approval should directly represent the will of the proletariat, and have the world revolution and advancement to communism as it's primary goals.

How soon the state can be completely abolished, or wither away, depends on the international situation. An army for an example is needed as long as there exists external threats.

It would be nice if the period of transition could be avoided, but true communism cannot coexist with imperialism on earth. There's not room for both.

I'd say that in a few years the example of a abundant, technologically advanced demoratic socialist society will be enough to make the proletariat of remaining imperialist countries revolt to join it. Only thereafter communism can emerge.

I'd very much like the anarchists of this site to convince me otherwise, since I'd really like to see communism in my lifetime instead of some modern USSR. The risks of socialism are great, but so are those of anarchism.

Power corrupts and a state is an obstacle for communism. But what good is it to build a perfect society if it's going to be destroyed by imperialist intervention?

Therefore I'm still a socialist.

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 09:04 PM
So what? Platformists ususally follow Marx's analysis on class and history because IT'S CORRECT. Does it make us petty-bourgeois? NO. Theres nothing wrong with taking things which make sense and putting them together with other things that make sense.
and then turn around and say marx was an authoritarian?

cant have your pie and eat it to

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by LoneRed+Mar 6 2006, 07:40 PM--> (LoneRed @ Mar 6 2006, 07:40 PM)
[email protected] 6 2006, 09:04 PM
So what? Platformists ususally follow Marx's analysis on class and history because IT'S CORRECT. Does it make us petty-bourgeois? NO. Theres nothing wrong with taking things which make sense and putting them together with other things that make sense.
and then turn around and say marx was an authoritarian?

cant have your pie and eat it to [/b]
Hmmmm I've never said that :huh: But what if I did say that. Why does that bar me from thinking the theory of historical materialism is correct? Im guessing you've either met some stupid anarchists are have some kind of feud.

[Cult of Reason]

I have been vaguely left wing since the age of 14 (17 now), before then being a The Economist reading Capitalist (ugh...)

My position now is that all forms of authority from above, illegitimate irrational authority, is an insult to the dignity of a free-thinking human, and that the existance of such authority directly inhibits the existance of such free-thinking individuals and their curiosity (as Einstein noted when he commented on the authoritarian teahing from his youth). Anyone want to bet as to what the relationship is? Inverse proportion? Negative exponential decay curve? y = 100%-x% (where x is amount of authority)?

I also think that the fundamental unit of all production is the energy used in the process and the transportation, and that in order for a Communist society and Anarchy to last for as long as possible, energy efficiency must be seen s very important, as well as environmental concern. One slogan of Technocracy is: "The aim is that there be the highest possible standard of living for the longest possible time." Sustainability is paramount.

I am both an Anarchist (or some other Libertarian Socialist)(probably Anarcho-Communist) and a Technocrat, and an Anarchist Technocrat. The latter is something I am am working on and will probably never finish: to install a technate from the the bottom up after already being in Communism through decisions of many communes or syndicates for the ultimate continent-wide organisation.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they do not care if it is called 'The People's Stick'" -Bakunin

[LoneRed]

nearly every "anarchist" ive met has said that, as well as Bakunin who originally said that. Bakunin doesnt understand a word Marx says, as is evident from his writing. You cant be like we dislike marxs use of the state in the period transition, but like his theories on society etc... just taking bits and pieces of his thought. you cant dislike marx, then use parts of his program, im not saying you have done it, just every anarchist ive met has done it

[violencia.Proletariat]

nearly every "anarchist" ive met has said that, as well as Bakunin who originally said that. Bakunin doesnt understand a word Marx says, as is evident from his writing.

I'm not a big fan of Bakunin. ;)


You cant be like we dislike marxs use of the state in the period transition, but like his theories on society etc

Why the fuck not, thats what its there for. It's not a religious text.


you cant dislike marx, then use parts of his program, im not saying you have done it, just every anarchist ive met has done it

I dont "dislike" Marx, but he had his contradictions just as every other leftist theoritician has. It's not a matter of me liking him on a personal level, its what ideas of his I think are worthwhile.

[LoneRed]

what im getting at, which may not have been clear, is that many anarchists call marx an authoritarian, when it comes to the rule of the proletariat, but like him when hes analyzing society, so is he an authoritarian or not. Its like theyre saying hes only an authoritarian when we disagree with him, but when we agree hes A ok <_<

[Led Zeppelin]

I &#39;follow&#39; --and chose to &#39;follow&#39;-- Marxism-Leninism because it&#39;s logical.

[Hopes_Guevara]

I support and will always support Marxism-Leninism. And, yes, I learn a lot from Ho Chi Minh&#39;s thought and I believe that to become a genuine communist fighter I need "Guevara&#39;s spirit".

[red team]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 01:47 AM
I also think that the fundamental unit of all production is the energy used in the process and the transportation, and that in order for a Communist society and Anarchy to last for as long as possible, energy efficiency must be seen s very important, as well as environmental concern. One slogan of Technocracy is: "The aim is that there be the highest possible standard of living for the longest possible time." Sustainability is paramount.

I am both an Anarchist (or some other Libertarian Socialist)(probably Anarcho-Communist) and a Technocrat, and an Anarchist Technocrat. The latter is something I am am working on and will probably never finish: to install a technate from the the bottom up after already being in Communism through decisions of many communes or syndicates for the ultimate continent-wide organisation.

More than that, energy accounting is the only economically rational way of managing an energy-intensive industrial society rather than a labour-intensive agrarian society. Reread the Why not money and money is inadequate paragraphs under the energy accounting document in the Technocracy Inc. website as to why a price system based on money is inadequate.

LTVs may provide an interim solution, but the flaw is that they measure value from labour time, both of which could be skewed by people arbitrarily pricing the result of labour differently and also machines increasing your material productivity of labour. As more people use machines to assist them in their jobs this skewing will get worse.

I&#39;m a Technocratic Socialist in that I believe there will be a short transition period needed where almost all manual labour work have to be automated in order for an alternative economic system not based on commodities to work, otherwise the resulting system would simply be a rationed labour system where labour is arbitrarily priced by the state instead of the market which will lead to everything else as a result of labour to be arbitrarily priced. This sort of commandist centralized economy where everything is arbitrarily priced never worked and more importantly is not any less corrupt or corruptable than plain unmodified Capitalism.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by red team
More than that, energy accounting is the only economically rational way of managing an energy-intensive industrial society rather than a labour-intensive agrarian society. Reread the Why not money and money is inadequate paragraphs under the energy accounting document in the Technocracy Inc. website as to why a price system based on money is inadequate.

LTVs may provide an interim solution, but the flaw is that they measure value from labour time, both of which could be skewed by people arbitrarily pricing the result of labour differently and also machines increasing your material productivity of labour. As more people use machines to assist them in their jobs this skewing will get worse.

I&#39;m a Technocratic Socialist in that I believe there will be a short transition period needed where almost all manual labour work have to be automated in order for an alternative economic system not based on commodities to work, otherwise the resulting system would simply be a rationed labour system where labour is arbitrarily priced by the state instead of the market which will lead to everything else as a result of labour to be arbitrarily priced. This sort of commandist centralized economy where everything is arbitrarily priced never worked and more importantly is not any less corrupt or corruptable than plain unmodified Capitalism.

I agree with this. Technocracy offers us the by far most effective method to get rid of capitalism I&#39;m familiar with. Replacing the price system with energy accounting seems like the Solution with the big S to me.

While it may take some time to adjust the society to this LTVs offer a temporary solution, but only temporary.

All this, again, depends on when the revolution occurs, how far the automation of society has proceeded at that point.

[violencia.Proletariat]

what im getting at, which may not have been clear, is that many anarchists call marx an authoritarian, when it comes to the rule of the proletariat

How was Marx authoritarian about it? He never had a dictatorship of the proletariat, nore am I aware of his writings where he is authoritarian in reference to it. He thought the Paris Commune was an example of dictatorship of the proletariat, I as an anarchist do not see that as "authoritarian". While I would want things to have been run differently, if thats how the transition has to be made FINE&#33;

Most people who call themselves anarchists are lifestylists who care more about animal rights then proletarian action :lol: Thats why we need to DEFINE anarchism, its already been done, we just need to enforce it.