What really makes me a leftist?

[workingpoor]

I am very new to these forms and i have never taken to labeling myself or my views because they are all over the board. What I do know is that the world is not right the way it is now. But as I look back at history I have seen a political system yet that truly worked whether it be a flawed theory or that the implementation was flawed

[Saint-Just]

It takes a long time to cystalise views, you may be influenced by many bourgeoisie cultural precepts such as communism is evil, communist regimes are 'bad' and... etc., etc.

History is still in the making and most of what you learn/have learnt is most likely history written by the class whose only interest is to prepetuate the class system and its position in such. History is in the making, no country has ever created a perfect utopia, but that can't stop you struggling for one in the future.

You should be able to find a place for your beliefs to fit in the political spectrum. Read leftist material and see what you think-or simply read some of the stuff on this forum; it is my opinion that most people on this forum follow Marxism-Leninism as those were the views of Che. Your beliefs will probably change until you finally find what they really are.

I would suggest finding first whether you oppose capitalism, if you do you are most likely a socialist since socialism is foremost a criticism of capitalism. From there you can find out how liberartarian/authoritarian you are and whether you subscribe to Marxism and so on... One thing you must do is not be worried about changing your current views using objective analysis (that is part of the Marxist doctrine).

[workingpoor]

i guess the point that i am trying to make or rather how my view is. Is that instead of the political spectrum being something that is linear I see it is as being circular how far left do you go before you become part of the right again.

[mentalbunny]

Well i have heard the political spectrum described as a circle before but I think it is more like a cone of anything, with the authoritairans not having much diference at the top and the libertarians being very different, also the cone as a big split up the side. But that's only my opinion, and not a very good image.

[Panamarisen]

Quote: from workingpoor on 6:20 pm on Jan. 17, 2003
i guess the point that i am trying to make or rather how my view is. Is that instead of the political spectrum being something that is linear I see it is as being circular how far left do you go before you become part of the right again.





Don´t think so... You may become part of the right -again or not- if you are greedly enough, imo.

A leftist standing means an individual/social choice for the welfare of the whole population, not just for some specifical people. If historically it hasn´t worked under an overall view, it doesn´t mean it´s impossible to achieve. It just means it´s kind of difficult, which is very reasonable, because it is not so easy to make EVERYBODY understand the welfare of the majority means -eventually- the welfare of the minorities..., if the minorities having the power could be able to understand the real meaning of "welfare"!


¡HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

just go to http://www.politicalcompass.org and take the test

[Dhul Fiqar]

Don't listen to them, comrade. It's all in the hat. Just get a big Soviet hat with a red star and such.

--- G.

[workingpoor]

Quote: from Panamarisen on 10:02 pm on Jan. 17, 2003[br

Don´t think so... You may become part of the right -again or not- if you are greedly enough, imo.


So where do anarchists fall?

[Blibblob]

Anarchists fall in the line of being stupid. They just started out with the abolition of government, and when they saw that they were wrong they quickly had to change what they said.

[bombeverything]

Blibblob, please elaborate.

Anarchists believe that people could live together within the bounds of the law of nature. Freedom is necessary for original thought. Anarchism is a rich, profound and original theory. Anarchism further seeks in social life what appears to operate in nature: the call for self-management in society mirrors the self-regulation and self-organisation of nature itself.

[Dhul Fiqar]

*sigh* Anarchism is so often misunderstood :(

--- G.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from bombeverything on 5:02 am on Jan. 19, 2003



Anarchists believe that people could live together within the bounds of the law of nature. Freedom is necessary for original thought. Anarchism is a rich, profound and original theory. Anarchism further seeks in social life what appears to operate in nature: the call for self-management in society mirrors the self-regulation and self-organisation of nature itself.



yes, it is original, etc etc. It aims to further social life, of course it does. But tell me one place where anarchism was able to successfuly and effectively achieve the self-management of society......exactly........ nowhere.

anarchism is to utopianistic to function properly imo. Possibly if you tried to create a gradual abolition of the government structure but to simply abolish it in the stroke of an instant would be madness. Chaos. I am not proposing that anarchism is the synonym for chaos as I used to however anarchism is a catalyst for a result or reaction of this calibre.

now I ask you to elaborate on this statement you made;

"the call for self management in society mirrors the self regulation and self organization of nature itself."

how does it in fact mirror the self organization of nature itself? may you enlighten me please?

[Dhul Fiqar]

Hell, communism has never been successfully implemented either, has it? :biggrin:

--- G.

[Blibblob]

Not a single one has been implanted successfully, save a dictatorship, but those dont last long.

[workingpoor]

the reason that communism and for that matter socialism is people are just to fucking greedy. until we evolve to a new level of conscienens (SP) and start to genuinely care for each other this will be nothing more than academic discussions

[chamo]

wp to be a true lefty you would care more about the individual than the state, people than money and have a good conscience and morals. If you anwser the political compass truthfully and with a good set of morals, I'm sure you'll find youself leftist/anarchist. Unless you're some Nazi trash which i
I'm sure you're not.

[bombeverything]

yes, it is original, etc etc. It aims to further social life, of course it does. But tell me one place where anarchism was able to successfully and effectively achieve the self-management of society......exactly........ nowhere.

Ok. The state is a recent development in human social and political organization, and for most of history human beings have organized themself in society without government or law in a peaceful way. Pure anarchy in the sense of a society with no concentration of control has probably never existed, however modern anthropology confirms that in organic or 'primitive' societies there is a limited concentration of force. If authority exists, it is delegated and rarely imposed, and in many societies no relation of command and obedience is in force. Anthropologists have described many different types of indigenous anarchies. They vary from gardeners to pastoralists, small groups like pygmies and Inuits in marginal areas to vast tribes like the Tiv in Nigeria or the Santals in East India. Nevertheless most of these groups have been destroyed by the state in the last couple of centuries. It is important to note the need to look towards a new future instead of praising the past.

anarchism is to utopianistic to function properly imo. Possibly if you tried to create a gradual abolition of the government structure but to simply abolish it in the stroke of an instant would be madness. Chaos. I am not proposing that anarchism is the synonym for chaos as I used to however anarchism is a catalyst for a result or reaction of this calibre.

I agree. I do not believe in an overthrow of the current government structure as, yes, in this case would be madness [and it would not work]. It would have to be a gradual process, as everyone would have to believe in it.

now I ask you to elaborate on this statement you made;

"the call for self management in society mirrors the self regulation and self organization of nature itself."

how does it in fact mirror the self organization of nature itself? may you enlighten me please?

I was referring to the self-organisation of nature. Nature itself acts in an unconscious way according to natural laws; nevertheless universal order exists in nature and society. There is a vast difference between organisation and imposed authority.

[Weatherman]

First off, I agree with Chairman Mao that we must always be willing to change if we discover flaws in our system. Second anarchism is not "stupid" and yes there are anarchist society's today. One of my personal friends lived with them for 6 months in Australia; It was a small group of under 600, no one was in charge, they were left alone by the government, and it worked. As a matter of fact she just moved back to live with them. I reccomend reading The ABC's of Communst Anarchism by Alexander Berkman. You can find a free online copy at ratm.com

Regarding wether anarchism or communism has worked in the past, you need only look at your question for the answer. What does "worked" mean? Has Capitalism worked? Well it certainly hasnt for me or the third world. Yes anarchism works, yes communism works. That's why Berkman wrote Communist Anarchism. By now your thinking "yeah, but it hasnt worked for long". Well lets look at why not. Has it not been the case that the USA (you know that small country in the western hemisphere) has attacked every known communist nation throughout the globe. The Capitalist used any means he could to destroy communism, so stop blaming the countrys for their failure, in most respects they didnt fail; they were destroyed before they could perfect the system. When someone is murdered you do not blame the victim you blame the murderer! When I say the USA has attacked every communist nation I mean it; wether it was through force, propaganda, economic pressure, or fear of being the next one on the list. Clinton said in a speech that we spent trillions of dollars in the cold war to fight communism. Now I dont know how accurate that number is but that's what he said. No suprise you fail when you have the most powerful nation gunning for you. Ofcourse the capitalist fought communism, Marx predicted their downfall; then the oppresors in power tricked the wage slaves into fighting their allies the communist. I will leave off by saying that this is not an argument. We are brainwashed from birth into thinking that we have to be right, we have to defend ourselves. Thats bullshit. There is nothing wrong with finding out that your wrong, wether it be me or you. And people are not all right, or all wrong, its usually a mix. So I say again this is not an argument, we are human beings sharing ideas in order to get a better picture of the solution. You should not be ashamed of anything about yourself, if you have nothing to add that's fine, just listen.