Log in

View Full Version : Pigeonhole vol 3



Kitskits
23rd December 2007, 09:33
I'm just doing this 75% for fun and 25% for serious reasons (understand where I might have a closest relation between the original big groups like Left Communist, Anarcho-Communist, Social-Democrat, Maoist etc etc bla bla). If you got tired of pigeonholing people (can't blame you) feel free to go, If the mods etc feel this is becoming an annoying habit, delete the thread please.

Anyway, my views would be summed up like this.

1)I feel that capitalism is an idiotic and oppressive system and I want it completely overthrown and not just minimizing the private sector etc etc.

2)I believe that the way to overthrow capitalism passes through 2 stages, 1) The Revolution or the election of a Revolutionary Party (the second is a bit improbable but not impossible) and their immediate systematic nationalization of the private sector. This has to be done in a large proportion of the world combined so that capitalism will be afraid to do international attacks and so that the economy of these new let's say socialist states will be much better with trade etc etc. 2) The socialist period where little by little socialism overtakes the whole world. A victory of socialism on a global stage and when capitalism and the private sector is completely once and for all exterminated, and through education the mainstream human has a will to work for the good of society and not waste too much goods (a ridiculous consequence of capitalism ONLY) the world should pass to a stateless, moneyless, co-operative global "one nation". Perhaps some armed bodies of men should exist but no professional cops in any sense.

3)I believe Religion when promotes a greater good-willing being or/and afterlife or/and bizarre ethics that end up making the individual more sad and lonely is totally DANGEROUS. If I could I would exterminate all religion, first organized religion and then personal religion. However, as I see that the second is very difficult and might give fuel to the reaction, I would only support to give it a try by education. Buddhism might escape the category, it's close but they kinda kill it with their ethics.

To expand a bit on how I think the socialist state should work. I think there should be a VERY strict socialist constitution in these countries. Such a constitution that will eventually and practically allow only Socialist or Communist parties to participate. Not a single party, but no reactionary parties either. I do not support total extermination of all opposition to the "Party" but I definately don't want right-wing or centrist or even leftist reformist parties. Ok now about the authoritarianism of the state, I don't agree with the anarchists in this thing, I think that capitalists NEED to be the oppressed simply because we want the private sector exterminated. As methods I denounce physical, psychological violence but surveillance and expelling one wealthy pig out of the country won't really do him a huge harm. No it would, but when it is necessary I support these methods. I would like organized religion deregulated immediately and in the far future possibly churches and "monuments of faith" demolished. On some social matters I would support abortion, light drugs, gay marriage (or perhaps after some very good backing by correct education, the total abolishment of the principle of weddings, marriage etc, in same gender or male-female relationships, just living together). However (get ready for authoritarian storm) I support that to have a child, one should acquire a license. A license that guarantees he/she/they do not suffer of some troubling inheritable disease or any other factors that would make the kid suffer (for example both parents being schizophrenic etc, I don't mean to say that it goes in the genes 100%, but it isolates the kid anyway). Don't misunderstand I do not support hitler eugenics and stuff. I just support some birth control for the sake of the kid's welfare. In the case of history as a lesson I agree with some anarchists I know (I know this is not an official position of anarchism, it's just these guys) that (most) history in the end does more harm than good, at least in the way it is given in the current capitalist "education". I think it should be given combined with politics/philosophy or something like that. I believe each of these new social states should teach their people to be internationalists, should teach them that national matters are idiotic and should teach them that nationalism is a clear divide-and-conquer capitalist propaganda.

Can you pigeonhole me in a certain (or relative) category? Some leftists I know call me a politically authoritarian, socially progressive to the extreme, plain communist.

Luís Henrique
23rd December 2007, 15:48
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:32 am
Can you pigeonhole me in a certain (or relative) category?
If you don't fly, you are not a pidgeon.

Luís Henrique

Lenin II
23rd December 2007, 19:35
With your sympathy for a violent revolution to overthrow capitalism and the subsequent dictatorship of the proletariat and class struggle, you seem to gravitate towards Marxist-Leninist. As far as the subset of that, your post seems unclear. The internationalist tendency seems Trotskyist, but not quite. I suppose it would depend on whether you favor socialism in one country or permanent revolution, and also how you feel about Stalin and Trotsky respectively.

Although keep in mind that all of this is just splitting hairs. My point is, at a time like this, these differences in ideology have become less important. What is needed is a united front against capitalism and imperialism. Although I may rip on anarchists, left communists and even Trotskyists to some extent, I am not nearly as sectarian in real life as I am on revleft. This is how it should be.

Kitskits
24th December 2007, 23:30
I actually think Socialism is not possible within only one country, but that shouldn't make the proletariat of that country not go for the revolution (or not to vote for a revolutionary party) even if they have no backup from the rest of the world's proletariat. The problem is that this could not reach full Socialism (in my opinion). As it goes about Stalin and Trotsky. I believe that Stalin was a bureaucrat and that he did not really understand dialectics and so he suppressed everyone who stood against him, the part that I disagree with him the most is being such a social reactionary (abortion stuff etc). The thing that bothers me in bureaucracy is that it doesn't actually represents the interest of the proletariat. If it did I would support it, but it's very dangerous under bureaucracy for the power to fall into hardline revisionist hands (like it did in the post-stalin Soviet Union).

About Trotsky I haven't really studied much, but If he wanted non-socialist/communist parties in elections I totally disagree with him. Though, what I've seen about Permanent Revolution I have to say I agree with.

Lenin II
25th December 2007, 01:29
I actually think Socialism is not possible within only one country, but that shouldn't make the proletariat of that country not go for the revolution (or not to vote for a revolutionary party) even if they have no backup from the rest of the world's proletariat. The problem is that this could not reach full Socialism (in my opinion). I believe that Stalin was a bureaucrat and that he did not really understand dialectics and so he suppressed everyone who stood against him,

This sounds is a very Trotskyist perception of the late Soviet Union. Depending on how you feel about the earlier Soviet Union, you're probably a Trot or a "left" communist. Just a suggestion: read the book in my signature.


the part that I disagree with him the most is being such a social reactionary (abortion stuff etc).

What abortion stuff? Abortion was free on demand in the Soviet Union.


About Trotsky I haven't really studied much, but If he wanted non-socialist/communist parties in elections I totally disagree with him. Though, what I've seen about Permanent Revolution I have to say I agree with.

In that case it sounds like you're a Trotskyist--the permanent revolution theory and perception of Stalin is essential to the ideology.

Kitskits
25th December 2007, 08:20
Hey I read somewhere that abortion was made illegal in the Soviet Union during Stalin (I remember the quote perfectly, they said that during Lenin it was legal but Stalin made it illegal, I don't know if this is true or propaganda stuff) and I didn't look up in to it very much. Thank you for your recommendation of the book I will read it.

EDIT: In addition to what I said in the previous post, I had read in a Soviet Political Economy book in Khruschev era that the Soviet Union is Socialist and it's successfully becoming Communist. I think this totally defies logic, Communism within one country? It would mean that will leave the country totally unprotected (no cops no army) from external factors. Ok Late Soviet Union is a joke if you ask me. But about Stalin I would have to look into it a bit more.