Log in

View Full Version : What type of Leftist am I?



Never Give In
27th July 2007, 16:41
This is the basics of my beliefs on why Capitalism is wrong, and how products should be distributed. I call myself an Anarchist but I question it sometimes. Can anyone help me find a label?

One of the fundamental faults of Capitalism is the basic axiom that if all people try to accumulate as much property and wealth as possible the general interest of the people will be served. All this seems to create is exploitation, hatred, and greed. Factory owners try to reduce as much as possible their expenditures on employees. The store owners try to profiteer as much as possible without any concern for the public, only their wallet. While the owners of factories and stores flourish, the worker does not come close to the wealth of the one who does nothing but pull the strings. I think a system which is based on an assumption that man is naturally greedy and because of that only fit to look after him is made of nothing but lies and a sickening greed.

Under Capitalism indifference to human needs has developed. For example, Canada and the United States spend countless hours worrying about the overproduction of food, and pay millions a year to reduce food production. They do this, while millions of people starve all over the world. Also, the production of goods is determined by market and not by human need. At all levels of development industries are run as if they are a good in themselves and should be maintained for their own sake rather then the welfare of mankind. I would like to see production based on human need, instead of human greed.

I believe that food, clothes, water, electricity, etc. (the basic things in life), because they are necessities needed to live and function in the modern world, should be handed out for free. Perhaps not in abundance, there may not be enough resources to support that, but enough for each family inhabiting the society. Other items that are not essential to survival, such as Televisions, Computers, Video Games, Toys, etc. should be bought if the person decides they want to. Want and Need are very different things. Needs should be handed out, Wants should be earned. People would be able to survive without prosperous financial conditions, but when they do they would be rewarded richly.

I have given much thought to if houses should be a free good as well, and I have come to the conclusion that they should. The common argument is that there is too many people to give out homes, which is why there is so many homeless individuals. If all the unnecessary factories that produce goods in the name of greed were knocked down, we’d have plenty of land for a mass construction of houses. The habitats of animals and plants would be unharmed, because the land the mass construction would take place on was already previously cleared. No new destruction, only new construction.


If there's any other info you need to help figure this out, just ask and i'll answer. Labels aren't really important to me, but I'd like to have a banner to stand under with people who believe almost exactly as I do.

Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg
27th July 2007, 16:56
why label your self?

You need to explain your views on how you wish to end capitalism and your views on post revolution society for anyone to acuratlry judge you

Never Give In
27th July 2007, 17:04
Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol [email protected] 27, 2007 11:56 am
why label your self?

You need to explain your views on how you wish to end capitalism and your views on post revolution society for anyone to acuratlry judge you
I believe in a violent revolution, as well as current action being to refrain from using Capitalism (borrowing from others, making your own stuff, DIY, etc.)

I believe post-revolutionary society should work with the product distribution I specified, with complete personal liberty to each person. I agree with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" I believe a non-Capitalist society organizes itself through co-operation.

apathy maybe
27th July 2007, 17:11
Indeed, you don't need to label yourself.

I won't bother giving you a description of Marxism, because to really call yourself one, you should understand what it is.

However, I will give you a description of what anarchism is. Anarchism is a super-set of ideologies that claims that hierarchy is a bad thing. That no person should be above another or have power over another. That is very simplified of course.

Different types of anarchists interpret that differently, and thus you can communist anarchists, mutualists, and so on. All anarchists oppose capitalism and the idea of a state (as defined by them...).

Personally, I am not one of the above, I'm "adjective free", I desire an anarchist society, though what form it takes i don't know.


Based on what you have given, I'm not sure if I would call you an anarchist or not (I would need more information), however, if you think you fit that, then I'ld suggest having a look at the stickied thread in this forum, and also have a read of this thread http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25915

I probably would say that you are a social democratic type at the movement, democratic socialist.

However, answers these questions for me, and I'll re-evaluate.
Do you oppose the ideas of rent, interest and profit?
Do you oppose the idea of property beyond what can be used by a person?
Do you oppose the idea of collectised property?
Do you oppose the idea of a state?

Do you support a revolution by the majority of people over throwing the capitlaist/state system?
If so, what would you suggest replace such a system?

Some of these questions are a bit leading, that is deliberate. Anyway.

Never Give In
27th July 2007, 17:26
Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 27, 2007 12:11 pm
Indeed, you don't need to label yourself.

I won't bother giving you a description of Marxism, because to really call yourself one, you should understand what it is.

However, I will give you a description of what anarchism is. Anarchism is a super-set of ideologies that claims that hierarchy is a bad thing. That no person should be above another or have power over another. That is very simplified of course.

Different types of anarchists interpret that differently, and thus you can communist anarchists, mutualists, and so on. All anarchists oppose capitalism and the idea of a state (as defined by them...).

Personally, I am not one of the above, I'm "adjective free", I desire an anarchist society, though what form it takes i don't know.


Based on what you have given, I'm not sure if I would call you an anarchist or not (I would need more information), however, if you think you fit that, then I'ld suggest having a look at the stickied thread in this forum, and also have a read of this thread http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25915

I probably would say that you are a social democratic type at the movement, democratic socialist.

However, answers these questions for me, and I'll re-evaluate.
Do you oppose the ideas of rent, interest and profit?
Do you oppose the idea of property beyond what can be used by a person?
Do you oppose the idea of collectised property?
Do you oppose the idea of a state?

Do you support a revolution by the majority of people over throwing the capitlaist/state system?
If so, what would you suggest replace such a system?

Some of these questions are a bit leading, that is deliberate. Anyway.
I believe profit is not required. As I said, I believe all people should be able to maintain an alright life without high profits.

Because I believe housing should be free, I guess I oppose rent.

I believe in borrowing and repaying money on personal loans, from citizen to citizen, not government/bank to citizen.

I would believe in a fair State, but not a Capitalist State. Though I would prefer a non-State society, in which society organizes itself through citizen cooperation.


I believe majority revolution is not required, perhaps the most effective, however.

Rawthentic
27th July 2007, 17:28
What do you mean by fair state? What is your definition of a state?

Is it the Marxist one (political organ of class rule) or anarchist (based on power and hierarchy)?

Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg
27th July 2007, 17:30
Do you think that society should be run through workers councils or by the state for the people?

Are you opposed to the vanguard of the party?

Do you think the labour/union movment is a good place to organise the workes?

Rawthentic
27th July 2007, 17:34
Wait now, I don't think you are being objective. Worker's councils are a state, they are by nature oppressive to the bourgeoisie.

Are you opposed to vanguard (we should define it before we ask him), which is an organized political current within a class (and the class conscious proletarians) with the purpose of winning over the working class to overthrow the capitalist class?

Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg
27th July 2007, 17:40
Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 27, 2007 04:34 pm
Wait now, I don't think you are being objective. Worker's councils are a state, they are by nature oppressive to the bourgeoisie.

Are you opposed to vanguard (we should define it before we ask him), which is an organized political current within a class (and the class conscious proletarians) with the purpose of winning over the working class to overthrow the capitalist class?
Generally speaking the w.councils are a democratic organisation in the workplace to serve the workers.


Vanguard can be democratic but most tend to be centralied commities such as communist parties

Never Give In
27th July 2007, 17:41
Originally posted by Y Chwildro Comiwnyddol [email protected] 27, 2007 12:30 pm
Do you think that society should be run through workers councils or by the state for the people?

Are you opposed to the vanguard of the party?

Do you think the labour/union movment is a good place to organise the workes?
Workers' Council.

I'm not sure what Vanguard Party is, I don't look into Lenin much, but I think it means a leading party in Revolution. If so, then no. I would be content in any society free of Capitalism.

No. The Union Movement I read about supports the 8 hour day movement, which includes child labour and other exploitive laws based on class. Dunno if I'm wrong here.

I'm a fairly new Leftist with much to learn, excuse me if my answers are unsatisfactory.

Ol' Dirty
27th July 2007, 17:58
If they can name you, they can own you. Your feelings on certain positions and the actions you take to enact that goal is more important than what you call yourself.

Never Give In
27th July 2007, 18:13
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:58 pm
If they can name you, they can own you. Your feelings on certain positions and the actions you take to enact that goal is more important than what you call yourself.
True, and I don't think labeling is very important, but I kind of want to know if i'm an Anarchist, Communist, Socialist, Leninist, whatever.

bolshevik butcher
27th July 2007, 19:46
My advice would be read into different strands that interest you. Don't just be swayed for or agianst something based on what other people have told you and half truths.

rouchambeau
27th July 2007, 22:35
It doesn't matter what kind of label you have. Just make sure what you believe in is sound.

RedKnight
27th July 2007, 22:54
You seem to me to be a council communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism). No it doesn't matter all that much what you are. But it does help you to get some ideas as to which authors you might like to read.

Marion
27th July 2007, 23:42
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 04:58 pm
If they can name you, they can own you.
Of course, its most important that you work out what you think makes best sense without obsessing about particular labels, but that doesn't mean that labels aren't important. I guarantee that most people on this forum wil be a member of one party or another and hence apply a certain label (not that that's a bad thing, because its not - its actually necessary). After all, you position yourself (presumably) as "left" so why cannot people "own" you because of that?

PS God knows how many leftists say they do not have a Leninist view of the vanguard party, don't approve of the existing unions and are supposedly in favour of workers councils without being council communists.

Never Give In
28th July 2007, 06:25
Democratic Socialism and Council Communism are what I always hear my friends say I am. I don't really believe in labeling, we're all Leftists and the Capitalists aren't going to view us as Socialists, Anarchists, Communists, whatever, just Revolutionaries. But I believe it a good idea to have a more specific banner to stand under, rather than just "Revolutionary" or "Leftist".

Bilan
28th July 2007, 06:38
Originally posted by Never Give [email protected] 28, 2007 03:25 pm
But I believe it a good idea to have a more specific banner to stand under, rather than just "Revolutionary" or "Leftist".
Combine them! "Revolutionary leftist" :D

Anyway, you sound like a council communist...but kind of sound like an anarchist.
I suggest reading just a few texts on the various political ideologies.
Say, why not start with Malatesta's Anarchy (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/malatesta/anarchy.html), then read Lenin's State and Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm), then perhaps something by Trotsky.
Explore the various ideologies and see what suits you.

Chicano Shamrock
28th July 2007, 13:13
Originally posted by Never Give [email protected] 27, 2007 08:41 am
No. The Union Movement I read about supports the 8 hour day movement, which includes child labour and other exploitive laws based on class. Dunno if I'm wrong here.

Yes they support the 8 hour day as opposed to the 12 or more hour day. That is a good thing because people don't have to work as long as they did. As for child labor and what not, unions are against that kind of stuff. They strike and sabotage against stuff like that.

As for your label no one can give you one. You really have to just decide yourself. Keep reading everything and then figure out what seems to make common sense to you. Pretty much all of the things you said you want we all want. The differences come about as to how we get to those wants.

Capital C Communists think a strong leader can help them rally people and transition into a formula that makes communist societies. Anarchists think that people can cooperate enough to succeed in developing a high level of organization without a central ruler. One seems to sound like a more stable formula and the other sounds like a formula with more freedom. Then there is everything in between and outside of those.

So keep reading and figure it out for yourself. Or let someone tell you what to do and be a Communist :P

Rawthentic
28th July 2007, 19:21
When has anybody advocated a "central ruler" to "lead" people to communism?

bezdomni
28th July 2007, 21:26
Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 28, 2007 06:21 pm
When has anybody advocated a "central ruler" to "lead" people to communism?
DIDN'T YOU KNOW THAT IS WHAT LENIN DID AFTER HE DRANK THE BLOOD OF ANARCHISTS AND KILLED WORKERS FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN FUN?!!?!

Ol' Dirty
29th July 2007, 00:31
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:42 pm




Of course, its most important that you work out what you think makes best sense without obsessing about particular labels, but that doesn't mean that labels aren't important.

Right, labels are very important in civilization. But to me, that's quite a problem :D. People should be judged as individuals before they are judged as a part of a group. To me, that's far more important than what party you're involved with. Solidarity of action is vital, but when group mentality is superimposed over individual thought, problems inevitably arise; not neccessarily due to our own actions, but the actions of those people who react negatively to us over petty things like our names.


I guarantee that most people on this forum wil be a member of one party or another and hence apply a certain label

Really? Can anyone be sure of that?


(not that that's a bad thing, because its not - its actually necessary).

Why are labels neccassery?


After all, you position yourself (presumably) as "left" so why cannot people "own" you because of that?

They can.


PS God knows how many leftists say they do not have a Leninist view of the vanguard party, don't approve of the existing unions and are supposedly in favour of workers councils without being council communists.

Could I ask what you mean by that?

Ol' Dirty
29th July 2007, 00:33
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:58 pm
If they can name you, they can own you. Your feelings on certain positions and the actions you take to enact that goal is more important than what you call yourself.

True, and I don't think labeling is very important, but I kind of want to know if i'm an Anarchist, Communist, Socialist, Leninist, whatever.

Could I ask why you want to "know" what you "are?"

TheTickTockMan
29th July 2007, 01:46
I'm feeling that you're a Democratic Socialist.

You don't advocate for a complete demolition of the money-system, but you advocate the allocation of resources according to need. Also, it seems that from your descriptions of it, you seem to advocate for a relatively stable, organised state, where the government gives out these necessities of life. That would tend to move you away from the anarchist wing and towards the statist wing, though your views on workers'-councils and trade unions would seem to argue for a relatively decentralized state.

@~TTTM

Janus
29th July 2007, 05:25
I'm feeling that you're a Democratic Socialist.
That would make sense except for this statement:

Originally posted by NGI
I believe in a violent revolution

Never Give In
29th July 2007, 20:38
Originally posted by Janus+July 29, 2007 12:25 am--> (Janus @ July 29, 2007 12:25 am)
I'm feeling that you're a Democratic Socialist.
That would make sense except for this statement:

NGI
I believe in a violent revolution [/b]
Does Council Communism advocate violent Revolution?

Never Give In
29th July 2007, 20:59
I just took a political spectrum survey, ha.

I scored 100% Libertarian. The possible results were Liberal, Statist, Conservative, and Centrist. It said that "I support little to no control over the individual by the State."

Janus
29th July 2007, 23:43
Does Council Communism advocate violent Revolution?
Yes, it's an inherent part of communist views concerning tactics and strategy.

praxis1966
30th July 2007, 00:24
NGI: You sound to me like an anarcho-syndicalist. Check out this website (http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/), which talks alot about the basics of anarcho-syndicalist thought, specifically the theories and ideology of Rudolf Rocker and Emile Pouget. You might also want to check out Hegemony and Revolution: Antonio Gramsci's Political and Cultural Theory (http://www.amazon.com/Hegemony-Revolution-Gramscis-Political-Cultural/dp/0520050576/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-1213627-1783167?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185751155&sr=1-1), by Walter L. Adamson.

In the meantime, you can take this test (http://www.okcupid.com/politics) over at OKCupid. It's kind of simplistic, but helpful in giving you a general idea of where you stack up in terms of 4 variables, and places you on a graph so you can compare yourself to historic political leaders.

Chicano Shamrock
30th July 2007, 10:49
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:24 pm
NGI: You sound to me like an anarcho-syndicalist. Check out this website (http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/), which talks alot about the basics of anarcho-syndicalist thought, specifically the theories and ideology of Rudolf Rocker and Emile Pouget. You might also want to check out Hegemony and Revolution: Antonio Gramsci's Political and Cultural Theory (http://www.amazon.com/Hegemony-Revolution-Gramscis-Political-Cultural/dp/0520050576/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-1213627-1783167?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185751155&sr=1-1), by Walter L. Adamson.

In the meantime, you can take this test (http://www.okcupid.com/politics) over at OKCupid. It's kind of simplistic, but helpful in giving you a general idea of where you stack up in terms of 4 variables, and places you on a graph so you can compare yourself to historic political leaders.
That test sucked. I tried a few times and I couldn't get it to say anarchist. First I was told I was a socialist. Then I tried to go back through it to see if I could pick the answers it would want me to pick to get to anarchist and then that said strong democrat. :D

Never Give In
31st July 2007, 03:45
Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+July 30, 2007 05:49 am--> (Chicano Shamrock @ July 30, 2007 05:49 am)
[email protected] 29, 2007 03:24 pm
NGI: You sound to me like an anarcho-syndicalist. Check out this website (http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/), which talks alot about the basics of anarcho-syndicalist thought, specifically the theories and ideology of Rudolf Rocker and Emile Pouget. You might also want to check out Hegemony and Revolution: Antonio Gramsci's Political and Cultural Theory (http://www.amazon.com/Hegemony-Revolution-Gramscis-Political-Cultural/dp/0520050576/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-1213627-1783167?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185751155&sr=1-1), by Walter L. Adamson.

In the meantime, you can take this test (http://www.okcupid.com/politics) over at OKCupid. It's kind of simplistic, but helpful in giving you a general idea of where you stack up in terms of 4 variables, and places you on a graph so you can compare yourself to historic political leaders.
That test sucked. I tried a few times and I couldn't get it to say anarchist. First I was told I was a socialist. Then I tried to go back through it to see if I could pick the answers it would want me to pick to get to anarchist and then that said strong democrat. :D [/b]
I get the feeling that the test interprets Anarchism as chaos, riot, and ruin. I took it three time, twice I was called a Strong Democrat, and once an Anarchist.