Finding My (Leftist) Self

[Spasiba]

CHECK PAGE 2 FOR MORE!!!!


Read at your own will.
The following are questions and rants I welcome all of you to help me out with, whether it be with answers, corrections, general comments, etc. Through this, I'm trying to learn a little more and have a better understanding of Leftist ideals and my relation to them. Any comment is appreciated!

I feel best described as a Democratic Socialist, so I should get along with the majority of you, I hope. I believe the people should have the power, not just the wealthy few, and they should be able to manage the means of production themselves. I think most of our views are far more democratic and free than the people who today claim to be the defenders of democray and freedom, while they denounce us as being freedom-hating bastards who want to enslave the world. Well let me be the first to say it. They're right. They've figured us out. Our whole mission is to unite the world in misery in oppression, and we will not stop until everyone is a slave. Because that makes sense. Well, too bad comrades, but on a lighter note, they have beat us to all those objectives.

I'm not sure as to how production can be perfected, as I always see these scenarios with things being overproduced and other things not made at all. How can we make sure things work smoothly?

I'm an agnostic and I feel no need to discriminate by religion, and it annoys me how people seem to think we want it abolished. On that note, people shouldn't be discriminated on any grounds.

While I agree we all are born equally, I also acknowledge we're not necessarily equal, if that makes sense. Much of who we are may just be how we are raised, but people have talents in different areas, and therefore should be able to do what they can do at their best, but I'm not sure as to how exactly this should be treated, because I don't believe they should be discriminated for being talented or see the rising of an elite class, again.

I have seen a few times people smiling at the deaths of American and other troops, and saying that it is good for them to be dead. I can't agree, while I realize that what they are fighting for is what we fight against, I don't see them as being evil, at least not most of them. I'm sure a few may be assholes, but I see most as believing in a cause or in need of money, and they don't view their job as supporting oppression. I do have a habit of calling it the business of death, and see no way to dispute that. Will there be any kind of military in a leftist world?

To me, the most evil man to ever live was Stalin. There it is, I said it. Why? He betrayed the revolution and killed millions, and while the amount may be disputed, and some deaths may not have been directly because of him, it can't be denied he is responsible for many. The killing of people for no reason but to gain power is what we fight against. Also, the fact that he did this just demonizes our position, because people associate him as being one of us, though I don't. I can't stand the man or his policies, and don't accept him as one of our own. He ruined what could have been something great. For similar reason, I don't like Mao. Pol-pot and Kim Jung-Il, are, too me, in no way communists at all, and I hate that people thing they are, and the same goes for what they say about 'communist' nations. I believe we have yet to see one. At that, I should add that since the standard of living in these countries was or is bad is undeniable, despite what propoganda may have been launched against them. USSR, China, Cuba, living is and wasn't good, although in Cuba, I must say its probably because of the embargo. Also, I don't understand the hatred of Chavez, sure he can be wild at times, but what has he done thats so wrong? The TV license thing was justifable.

I believe revolution will be the only real way change can come, but I don't see it coming soon, which is sad. People say that life is better than it was when the manifesto was written, and it is, for many Westerners, but thats only because all the shit kind of things going on have been moved to other countries. Out of sight, out of mind, right? If things would change there, maybe we could change things here. That also brings up the point that these nations are in the 3rd world, which may mean they are not ready for a full on revolution, since, AFAIK, this must happen in developed countries. But if we start to see change elsewhere, and the capitalists start having to exploit by different means, we may be able to rise up with a great deal of support.

It's sad that the strongest country in the world is the most consverative and extremely patriotic. Thats shit right there. Patriotism to me is a plauge that infects far too many people. We use it as an excuse to go to war, for racism, and to sell more crap. It's annoying and just divides the world more.

I am an internationalist, but I also respect more local things. I like languages, traditions, and all that. I have seen a few times where these are railed against, but I don't agree. Just because an area has certain customs and ways doesn't make it counter-revolutionary, people should be able to keep their ways. I understand that we may see this as a way for locals to discriminate against foreigners, but I don't think that these things have to happen. I don't want to have to go to Munich, Bejing, and Cario and see a Wal-Mart and English as the main language, just because it brings more money that way.

I think Fascism defeats itself because it excludes 'other' people and as long as that stands we can beat them, but their focus on militarism is intimidating. And to those who idolize fascism and say that fascists have made countries better, its probably because they totally annihilated any kind of opposition and with an iron fist, so that people were to afraid to try and be different.

How will the entertainment industry fare post-revolution I wonder? If people have what they want, reality and game shows lose alot of point. Oh well.

I believe in nothing short of marriage for gays and lesbians, I see no reason why they should be excluded from what straight people can have. While I'm not even that big on marriage, I don't see why somone who wants to be married shouldn't be. And those bogus arguments that that will lead to animal marriage, bullshit, if you can't consent, you can't get married. What are leftist views on monogamy and polygamy?

Some leftist heroes, while with notable flaws, include: Marx, Engels, Guevara, Debs, Orwell, Zapata, EZLN, Durriti. There are others, but I don't know enough about them, like: Luxembourg, Lenin, Trotsky, many other russian revolutionaries, Makhno, and I'm sure there are many others that would be good to know about.

How exactly is progress to be made as I've been raised to think competition makes it? Scientifically, technologically, politcally (where to go from where we'll be?), and so on.

How can I find a leftist orgainization near me? And where can I get leftist stuff, I've been wanting an EZLN, anarcho-syndicalist, and communist flag for a while. They're amazing, and piss people off, or at least get their attention, and with what I know, I may at least get them to be more sympathetic.

We make too much waste, and we can't keep living like this if we want to keep this planet livable for future generations, maybe even this one. So what can we do to stop this?

I have to say that, at the moment, my life is pretty good, and I could probably do just as well without obsessing over the revolution, but, as in that famous Debs quote, I don't think I could just live happily knowing what is going on in the world. The starvation, the inequality, the injustice, the oppression, and so on, all of it. Anyone see that commercial for that new show coming out, where they ask 'risky' questions? With one being "do you really care about the starving children in Africa" and the person answers "no"? Idk what to make of that, but I hope that that doesn't become me or anyone I care about. That being said, it is my greatest fear of becoming Mussolini, who started out socialist, but became fascist.


Sorry, that was alot, kind of vented, but now I go it out, and while I don't expect anyone person to read this all, any comments in general could help.

[Dros]

I'm think your avatar is an anarchist symbol. Just so you know. I'm not really sure though...

[Colonello Buendia]

I figured the symbol to be anarcho-socialist, Spasiba you may be glad to hear that alot of your views are pretty much the same as mine comrade, I'd define myself as a socialist nice to hear from you comrade!

[spartan]

I, for the most part, hold the same beliefs as you comrade and consider myself a Democratic Socialist.

I understand why you hate Stalinism and all its derivatives as they werent Democratic and, lets face it, werent even Socialist.

Anyway its nice to see more Socialists who believe in Democratic means here on revleft.

Feel free to check out my "Political Statement" on my profile to better understand my current political beliefs.

[Psy]

Originally posted by Spasiba+December 29, 2007 08:04 am--> (Spasiba @ December 29, 2007 08:04 am)
I'm not sure as to how production can be perfected, as I always see these scenarios with things being overproduced and other things not made at all. How can we make sure things work smoothly?
[/b]
Well there is now more then simple capital feed back, computers now track sales, inventory and production and capitalist use these to plan production instead of just capital. Of course currently they plan in order to accumulate more capital and their information is limited as they can't see their competitors data or plans.


Originally posted by Spasiba+--> (Spasiba)
While I agree we all are born equally, I also acknowledge we're not necessarily equal, if that makes sense. Much of who we are may just be how we are raised, but people have talents in different areas, and therefore should be able to do what they can do at their best, but I'm not sure as to how exactly this should be treated, because I don't believe they should be discriminated for being talented or see the rising of an elite class, again.
[/b]
Yes people have different talents but most people can find something they are good at.


Originally posted by Spasiba

I have seen a few times people smiling at the deaths of American and other troops, and saying that it is good for them to be dead. I can't agree, while I realize that what they are fighting for is what we fight against, I don't see them as being evil, at least not most of them. I'm sure a few may be assholes, but I see most as believing in a cause or in need of money, and they don't view their job as supporting oppression. I do have a habit of calling it the business of death, and see no way to dispute that.

Well during WWII the average German grunt wasn't a fascist and were simply doing what they saw was their duty.


Originally posted by Spasiba

Will there be any kind of military in a leftist world?

Depends what threats exists but if we are talking after a successful world revolution what would be the point?


[email protected]

How exactly is progress to be made as I've been raised to think competition makes it? Scientifically, technologically, politcally (where to go from where we'll be?), and so on.

If you look at lot of technology was not created through competition for example the Internet and computers came out of the military simply asking for it to be invented and throwing tons of money at its devlopment.


Spasiba

We make too much waste, and we can't keep living like this if we want to keep this planet livable for future generations, maybe even this one. So what can we do to stop this?

Most of the stuff we manufacture is a invented want, advertising drives people to consume more then they actually need or want, this is why people have closets full of stuff they don't use.

[kromando33]

Friend I think you need to get over your left-liberal opportunism and defeatism to the bourgeois, 'democratic socialism, market socialism and social democracy' are all products of this capitulationism to the bourgeois.

You need to abandon your superficial Hegelian idealism (Trotskyism, anarchism etc) and read Marxism-Leninism, because the more you read it the more cynical and practical to socialism you become, rather than staying as a naive silly idealist your whole life.

[spartan]

Friend I think you need to get over your left-liberal opportunism and defeatism to the bourgeois, 'democratic socialism, market socialism and social democracy' are all products of this capitulationism to the bourgeois.
:lol:

Read up on Democratic Socialism before putting it in the same pot as Social Democracy and Market Socialism.

You need to abandon your superficial Hegelian idealism (Trotskyism, anarchism etc) and read Marxism-Leninism, because the more you read it the more cynical and practical to socialism you become, rather than staying as a naive silly idealist your whole life.
The only thing that he will become more cynical and practical to is Bureaucratic State Capitalism and how to forever end any hopes of workers ownership and control of the productive forces in society.

Honest to God where the fuck have all these nutty Stalinists, MIM style Maoists and Hoxaists come from all of a sudden?

[phasmid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 10:16 am

You need to abandon your superficial Hegelian idealism (Trotskyism, anarchism etc) and read Marxism-Leninism, because the more you read it the more cynical and practical to socialism you become, rather than staying as a naive silly idealist your whole life.
I have the same views as Spasiba but there's no way in hell that I'm "naive". And being an idealist isn't "silly".

[kromando33]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 12:00 am

Friend I think you need to get over your left-liberal opportunism and defeatism to the bourgeois, 'democratic socialism, market socialism and social democracy' are all products of this capitulationism to the bourgeois.
:lol:

Read up on Democratic Socialism before putting it in the same pot as Social Democracy and Market Socialism.

You need to abandon your superficial Hegelian idealism (Trotskyism, anarchism etc) and read Marxism-Leninism, because the more you read it the more cynical and practical to socialism you become, rather than staying as a naive silly idealist your whole life.
The only thing that he will become more cynical and practical to is Bureaucratic State Capitalism and how to forever end any hopes of workers ownership and control of the productive forces in society.

Honest to God where the fuck have all these nutty Stalinists, MIM style Maoists and Hoxaists come from all of a sudden?
'Bureuacratic State Capitalism', wow straight out of the Trot handbook, sad thing being that you don't even know what your criticizing, instead you're just letting a bunch of left-liberals who aren't even Marxists tell you what your ideology is, and what it means, great rewrite of history I spose. Seriously I think we all know that 'democratic socialism' is a fraud, it's just some desperate attempt for it's adherents to say in front of 'mainstream politics' that they are 'good' socialists and don't like Stalin, it's such a petty defeatism and failure to stand up for Marxist principles that it makes me sad. Never has Marxism been attacked more than by these post-91 disheartened ex-socialists who tried to revise Marx to appeal to the bourgeois standards.

Seriously please read this. (http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html)

[spartan]

Never has Marxism been attacked more than by these post-91 disheartened ex-socialists who tried to revise Marx to appeal to the bourgeois standards.
I would say that the Bureaucracy, living in palaces and mansions and having access to the best things money could buy whilst the workers lived in small flats in tower blocks and had to form long queues for hours waiting for basic things such as bread and meat, is quite Bourgeoisie on the part of the Bureaucracy wouldnt you agree?

But hey these were Socialist states so everything is all right :rolleyes:

[Spasiba]

I'm think your avatar is an anarchist symbol. Just so you know. I'm not really sure though...
Yes, quite aware, and while I'm a Democratic Socialist, idealy I'd like for one day the world to be anarcho-syndaclist, though IDK how long that would take.

As for the Stalinist: As a leftist I think I have to be an idealist, especially when living in the belly of the beast.
It isn't defeatist to disagree with Stalin. What did the man do? He taught us, yes, that one man can gain tremendous power and have much done in his bidding, but it was in my knowledge that we as leftists faught against authority, especially those that come in the form of one, egomaniac man. As for this 'typical trot' BS, whatever. If disagreeing with Stalin makes me a trotskyite, so be it. I'm not, but dammit if I ever fall in line with a man like Stalin. No better than a fascist if you ask me. Life under him was not some paradise, thats for sure.

It's things like Stalin, the MIM, and that other BS 'party' that idolizes Pol Pot and Jim Jones (one of the biggest laughs I've had in a while, thanks to them), that make us leftists look like the idiots the right sets us out to be. On other forums, I see remarks made of the left and how idiotic we are, but when I came here, its suprising to see how rational and, well, righteous we are. Its good to be in good company, this site is far better and knowledgable than I ever would have guessed growing up thinking communism was the devil.

To all other posters, thank you comrades, good to know I'm not alone! I may be posting more as more questions arise.

[kromando33]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 12:53 am

Never has Marxism been attacked more than by these post-91 disheartened ex-socialists who tried to revise Marx to appeal to the bourgeois standards.
I would say that the Bureaucracy, living in palaces and mansions and having access to the best things money could buy whilst the workers lived in small flats in tower blocks and had to form long queues for hours waiting for basic things such as bread and meat, is quite Bourgeoisie on the part of the Bureaucracy wouldnt you agree?

But hey these were Socialist states so everything is all right :rolleyes:
Way to show your lack of knowledge, socialist states are not perfect, in fact by Marxist definition they are infect but are characterized by a solid progression in building socialism into communism, that is class struggle. Socialism is defined as a period after the revolution in which the working class has the overthrown the 'dictatorship of the bourgeois' and replaced it with their own dictatorship. During this period society will be constantly under attack by the bourgeois (both at home and abroad) desperate to restore capitalism. If they fail through open arms they will turn to infiltrating the party and society to bring society back to capitalism through revisionism, this obviously happened in the USSR after Stalin's death and also after Mao's in China. It was Mao in fact who developed the theory of socialism and contradiction, and that the socialist state would be in a constant flux and state of 'Criticism and Self Criticism' in which the whole popular state would be engaged in rooting out bastions of reactionism in society, if this isn't done eventually the bourgeois will entrench themselves so far into society that as a disease they will weaken socialism. Mao also theorized the 'bourgeois in the party' by which the bourgeois would attempt to take over the party from within.

Comrade, socialism is class warfare, no true Marxist revolutionary can shun away from this duty to the revolutionary worker movement. The lies about Stalin are Nazi and Western propaganda, Trotsky as you know was given refuge by the imperialist powers in order to spread misinformation about socialism in the USSR. Please, read my above link and you'll see this information fully sourced.

As for the 'Bureaucracy' Trot BS, Bureaucracy does entail class, it's simply a strata of society, and such stratas exist in contradiction (socialism), it's simply an expression of human interdependence in different tasks but in the method of centralized cooperation. The kinda 'local' worker control you espouse is dangerous because it encourages division between localities, factories, regions etc instead of the solidarity against bourgeois we should be working towards.

Again, I would encourage you to read the entirety of my Stalin link.

[Spasiba]

On things I've thought of recently:

Religion, I understand why most, if not all of us are against it, but to try and destroy is wrong. It would be hard to do so and when we did try to, we would just create more enemies. Post-revolution, if things go as planned, it should wither away on its own, but so long as religion has millions of followers, attacking it will just create more hatred to us, and its not as if it is immediatley harmful to us, only if leaders try and manipulate it to be used against us.

The military, I've seen alot of hatred towards it. I understand why, but the thing is, I'm sure the great majority of soldiers aren't consciously thinking "let's support imperialism and suppress these people, oppress the working class, and do all we can to exploit the people of this land in the name of our great leaders" no, they think what they are doing is fighting for their country and the rights they believe it holds and their families living there. They aren't trying to do anything counter-revolutionary, and as I've seen said before, can aid us in the revolution, its just a short briefing of our stratedgy away.
Has every war been class war?

People seem to want to eliminate the bougeosie, which is understandable, but must we go the the lengths of wanting to actually kill every last member of the classes above us, or can we try and bring them with us. I'm sure some are out there to try and oppress us, but I think at least some of them are there because they want to make a living, and while acting a bit asshole-ish, not deserving of a death sentence.

Free speech and press and so on are what we should be fighting for. lets not suppress ideals, we must fight for them.
Labeling things counter-revolutionary and saying they must be destroyed can get out of hand, let us focus on what truly will harm us, not things we don't like.

We can't keep attacking everything if we want to win in a revolution, religion, the military, other organizations that are in general misguided shouldn't be immediately sought out and attacked and destroyed, we need people of all types, all we need to do is educate them, if we try and eliminate them, we just make more enemies. We are fighting for the people, lets not outright attack what they believe in when in general they aren't thinking of suppressing people. They believe in what they think is right, that is all.

[Luís Henrique]

'Bureuacratic State Capitalism', wow straight out of the Trot handbook,

Among the many flaws of Trotsky, there never was the one of proposing the existence of "Bureaucratic State Capitalism". But I doubt you even care; as long as you can make an ininterrupt stream of meaningless personal attacks, everything is OK to you.

Luís Henrique

[E.G. Smith]

I'm an agnostic and I feel no need to discriminate by religion, and it annoys me how people seem to think we want it abolished. On that note, people shouldn't be discriminated on any grounds.


Couldn't agree with you more. I think the idea is that, since all religions (no matter how moderate or progressive) can be brought to a fundamentalist and therefore oppressive level, communists and anarchists alike want such an institution abolished. This is particularly contradictory, however, because ANY ideology can be taken to a fundamentalist, oppressive level. Sorry to all the Stalinists and Maoists out there... I've heard you all out before, but I just can't get behind it, because Maoism and Stalinism are also oppressive to many. And groups today like the RCP (which I'm particularly critical of) use the same model that Mao used, and I do find those inherently oppressive.

[INDK]

As a leftist I think I have to be an idealist, especially when living in the belly of the beast.

Materialism is most revolutionary-leftist's philosophical choice, though that may be because most revolutionary-leftists are Marxists or at least are influenced by Marx's philosophy, and Marxist philosophy is centered around Materialism as well as Anti-Idealism.

[#FF0000]

Materialism is most revolutionary-leftist's philosophical choice, though that may be because most revolutionary-leftists are Marxists or at least are influenced by Marx's philosophy, and Marxist philosophy is centered around Materialism as well as Anti-Idealism.

I don't think Spasiba meant philosophical idealism.

[INDK]

I don't think Spasiba meant philosophical idealism.

Ah, I just looked into the post a bit further and noticed the context; whoopsies....

[Spasiba]

Couldn't agree with you more. I think the idea is that, since all religions (no matter how moderate or progressive) can be brought to a fundamentalist and therefore oppressive level, communists and anarchists alike want such an institution abolished. This is particularly contradictory, however, because ANY ideology can be taken to a fundamentalist, oppressive level. Sorry to all the Stalinists and Maoists out there... I've heard you all out before, but I just can't get behind it, because Maoism and Stalinism are also oppressive to many. And groups today like the RCP (which I'm particularly critical of) use the same model that Mao used, and I do find those inherently oppressive.
Thank you, you understand exactly what I mean :D

I don't think Spasiba meant philosophical idealism.
Yeah, you got it. I would be materialist in that sense, but that's not to count out all parts of idealism.


Now, more things

What is this hoxhaist stuff, from my understanding, it's nothing but Stalinism by another name.

check a few posts up for other recent thoughts of mine.

[#FF0000]

What is this hoxhaist stuff, from my understanding, it's nothing but Stalinism by another name

That's basically what it is, except it seems even more violent and totalitarian.

[Spasiba]

That's basically what it is, except it seems even more violent and totalitarian.


Well fuck.

[Kitskits]

I think most of our views are far more democratic and free than the people who today claim to be the defenders of democray and freedom, while they denounce us as being freedom-hating bastards who want to enslave the world.If by freedom they mean economic liberalism they are right comrade. Socialism tries to bring economic liberalism to a minimum. Communism tries to totally kill private property and economic liberalism. But even an idiot can realize this will lead to a better future for everyone so, yes, the bourgeois are once again worse than idiots.


I'm an agnostic and I feel no need to discriminate by religion, and it annoys me how people seem to think we want it abolished. On that note, people shouldn't be discriminated on any grounds.A plain communist would want organized religion abolished according to Marxism (correct me if I use bizarre terminology) because organized religion can have a reactionary counter-revolutionary effect on people. Wether intentionally, i.e. priests directed by the bourgeoisie preaching counter-revolution and making god-kill-us-all threats to the proletariat or by mistake, i.e. teachings of some idiotic Religions (this probably means all of them with a different rate in each one of them) that contradict with Marxist theory.

If you ask me, I don't just want organized religion abolished, but personal religion too. Think about it, comrade. The teachings of some religion, based on metaphysics and I don't know what other 100% non-scientific method teaching of some afterlife in bliss or benevolent god etc etc. This could make the proletariat think "hey this life is shit but I don't give a shit about the revolution cause in the next life bla bla/cause god will do this, that bla bla help me, us, them bla bla" and more nonsense. To sum it up in one sentence: I don't even want personal religion because it can make people act in non-scientific non-materialist ethics that can and WILL eventually lead to undesirable situations.


While I agree we all are born equally, I also acknowledge we're not necessarily equal, if that makes sense. Much of who we are may just be how we are raised, but people have talents in different areas, and therefore should be able to do what they can do at their best, but I'm not sure as to how exactly this should be treated, because I don't believe they should be discriminated for being talented or see the rising of an elite class, again.In a capitalist hell but even in a socialist society too, there are some people that are overally less usable to the society as a whole. For example, a crippled schizophrenic/depressive. Can you people tell me if these have something "good" to hold on, or even if they have "other" abilities, do they make them as happy or as productive for society as the rest of the more privileged people? No. That's why they will be in a discriminated situation even in socialism. That's why I am a communist because I see that only in a communist society where every one gets their needs fulfilled these outsiders might be able to become a bit closer to equal with the others. Your description seems like a communist society and I am happy for that.


At that, I should add that since the standard of living in these countries was or is bad is undeniable, despite what propoganda may have been launched against them. USSR, China, Cuba, living is and wasn't good, although in Cuba, I must say its probably because of the embargo.It is because of the embargo by the pigs. But however, you must appreciate that things in Russia, for the big masses, are MUCH worse than they were in the Soviet Union. Cuba, before the revolution, was a huge casino for the capitalist pigs.


I am an internationalist, but I also respect more local things. I like languages, traditions, and all that. I have seen a few times where these are railed against, but I don't agree. Just because an area has certain customs and ways doesn't make it counter-revolutionary, people should be able to keep their ways. I understand that we may see this as a way for locals to discriminate against foreigners, but I don't think that these things have to happen. I don't want to have to go to Munich, Bejing, and Cario and see a Wal-Mart and English as the main language, just because it brings more money that way.Yeah, but you should take into account some of the idealistic counter-revolutionary ideas in some (most of them actually) traditions. I don't have a problem with languages because they are a tool. The nature of some traditions however might battle materialism very heavily.

And what do you mean as "tradition", you know it is a very broad array of things.

Take a look on the traditions of the muslims. The stance on women? Who and with what criteria draws the line between good and bad traditions? Is the line drawn according to materialism and Marxist theory? All this are huge problems with the traditions.



I believe in nothing short of marriage for gays and lesbians, I see no reason why they should be excluded from what straight people can have. While I'm not even that big on marriage, I don't see why somone who wants to be married shouldn't be. And those bogus arguments that that will lead to animal marriage, bullshit, if you can't consent, you can't get married. What are leftist views on monogamy and polygamy?I think that generally, leftists are pro-gay/lesbian wedding. Personally I agree but I don't like weddings at all.



That being said, it is my greatest fear of becoming Mussolini, who started out socialist, but became fascist.It's no black and white. Democracy and dictatorship are always mixed, in different quantities. You seem to put ALL faith in Democracy. Democracy is just a tool, it's sure better than fascism but I disagree in one thing with TOTAL DEMOCRACY, I think it fails to recognize some "objective" truths because it relies totally on the subjective perception of the individuals. Under an idealistic world, democracy would serve to destroy materialism, under the bourgeois world we live today, democracy is used to destroy communist ideas. Imagine absolute democracy in a previously theocratic state. What do you think the masses will try to promote? Human rights? Equality? Health? Fun? or their imaginary stupid "GOD"?

[Spasiba]

If by freedom they mean economic liberalism they are right comrade. Socialism tries to bring economic liberalism to a minimum. Communism tries to totally kill private property and economic liberalism. But even an idiot can realize this will lead to a better future for everyone so, yes, the bourgeois are once again worse than idiots.
True, but I was thinking more socially. I'm still taking this whole economic view in. I'm not totally sure on how this works, communisticly. What does it mean to not have economic liberty, and what replaces it?


A plain communist would want organized religion abolished according to Marxism (correct me if I use bizarre terminology) because organized religion can have a reactionary counter-revolutionary effect on people. Wether intentionally, i.e. priests directed by the bourgeoisie preaching counter-revolution and making god-kill-us-all threats to the proletariat or by mistake, i.e. teachings of some idiotic Religions (this probably means all of them with a different rate in each one of them) that contradict with Marxist theory.
I don't think this is something that is inevitable though, so religion wouldn't necessarily need to be destroyed to protect us. Besides, many people follow a religion, if we attack it, we lose them. We can use it, I think, to help us. We can show how helping our fellow man is what their gods would want, and being exploited is not what they would want, etc.


If you ask me, I don't just want organized religion abolished, but personal religion too. Think about it, comrade. The teachings of some religion, based on metaphysics and I don't know what other 100% non-scientific method teaching of some afterlife in bliss or benevolent god etc etc. This could make the proletariat think "hey this life is shit but I don't give a shit about the revolution cause in the next life bla bla/cause god will do this, that bla bla help me, us, them bla bla" and more nonsense. To sum it up in one sentence: I don't even want personal religion because it can make people act in non-scientific non-materialist ethics that can and WILL eventually lead to undesirable situations.
I'm not too keen on this, but if the revolution shows success, people should join, I don't recall people just giving up on this life in hopes for another one. Let people believe what they want, we can't become terrorists of the mind. I don't think that it will necessarily lead them to be counter-revolutionary.


In a capitalist hell but even in a socialist society too, there are some people that are overally less usable to the society as a whole. For example, a crippled schizophrenic/depressive. Can you people tell me if these have something "good" to hold on, or even if they have "other" abilities, do they make them as happy or as productive for society as the rest of the more privileged people? No. That's why they will be in a discriminated situation even in socialism. That's why I am a communist because I see that only in a communist society where every one gets their needs fulfilled these outsiders might be able to become a bit closer to equal with the others. Your description seems like a communist society and I am happy for that.
Socialism wouldn't need to discriminate if managed right, as enough would be produced to provide for them, and hopefully people will be humane enough to still feel this necessary, and I think with our ideas they would.


It is because of the embargo by the pigs. But however, you must appreciate that things in Russia, for the big masses, are MUCH worse than they were in the Soviet Union. Cuba, before the revolution, was a huge casino for the capitalist pigs.
For the masses yes. Thats the problem, now a few people are making money, and the West calls it a success as the masses get less than they should. Nothing new here though, just capitalism at work. I don't know if the standard of living has raised though, it may have, but the Soviet Union wasn't some shining example, so that isn't surprising. Still, it provided people with jobs and such, but we have a lot further to go before society is as it should be. A lot.


Yeah, but you should take into account some of the idealistic counter-revolutionary ideas in some (most of them actually) traditions. I don't have a problem with languages because they are a tool. The nature of some traditions however might battle materialism very heavily.

And what do you mean as "tradition", you know it is a very broad array of things.

Take a look on the traditions of the muslims. The stance on women? Who and with what criteria draws the line between good and bad traditions? Is the line drawn according to materialism and Marxist theory? All this are huge problems with the traditions.

True, but things like that may just dissolve on their own as it isn't found to help things at all. What I'm talking about are thinks like culture, i.e. how and what people eat, live, build, work, etc, so long as they don't hinder effort or oppress people, I see no problem. Things like fesitvals as well, Oktoberfest, no reason to disband that.


I think that generally, leftists are pro-gay/lesbian wedding. Personally I agree but I don't like weddings at all.
Ditto


It's no black and white. Democracy and dictatorship are always mixed, in different quantities. You seem to put ALL faith in Democracy. Democracy is just a tool, it's sure better than fascism but I disagree in one thing with TOTAL DEMOCRACY, I think it fails to recognize some "objective" truths because it relies totally on the subjective perception of the individuals. Under an idealistic world, democracy would serve to destroy materialism, under the bourgeois world we live today, democracy is used to destroy communist ideas. Imagine absolute democracy in a previously theocratic state. What do you think the masses will try to promote? Human rights? Equality? Health? Fun? or their imaginary stupid "GOD"?

True, which is why socialism and the like, when implemented, should help get priorities out there. If we show people whats wrong and what is to be done, they should follow. The reason I want democracy with this is that I want to avoid dictatorships and other authoritarian measures, which have sadly resulted in many revolutions.

[Comrade Rage]

What is this hoxhaist stuff, from my understanding, it's nothing but Stalinism by another name.
Hoxhaism is Anti-Revisionism. We believe in the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha. We believe that Marxism-Leninism is good, and that the proletariat should be free. We also believe in fighting deviations and revisions of it by those who don't have working class liberation at heart.


That's basically what it is, except it seems even more violent and totalitarian.We believe in Marxism-Leninism. We believe in it's thorough implementation, and liberation of the workers.

It is your beliefs that are violent and totalitarian.

[kromando33]

Exactly comrade, it's the reformers and anti-Marxist traitors who would sit by while the proletariat is brutally oppressed criticising us Marxists who fight it as 'violent' and 'authoritarian', and when a revolution happens and the bourgeois get hurt their naive idealist pacifistic indignities come up, and they criticize the revolutionary Marxists and don't say a word against their bourgeois masters, it's really quite sad. Those silly anarchists, Trots and liberals will never do anything for working class liberation, they will criticize us 'Stalinists' incessantly in a desperate attempt to conform to the bourgeois standards, but they will never fight for a proletarian state. Remember the betrayal of the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, who used it as an excuse to pursue an ultra-liberal agenda, and helped the fascists win.

Stalinism (essentially Marxism-Leninism) is nothing but the self-determination of the working masses, I suggest some people on this thread use some self-criticism to right their deviationist and revisionist line.

[Spasiba]

Can you go deeper into this (anti-revisionism) comrades?

More questions.

I see under communism that, apparantly, if you don't work, you are still provided for. That runs counter to all I know, so can this be cleared up?

Is there any real indicator of when we can presume the revolution to come?

I realize things like Keynesian (sp?) economics, liberals, and so on are, as I've seen it described before, 'capitalism with a happy face,' can we still see this as progressive?

What the fuck is up with Ayn Rand and objectivism?

Hypothetical question: As some capitalists have me believe, 3rd world nations are developing, and when they become capitalist, they will live like we do, that is to say, by comparison, fairly comfortable. The standard of living in the US, where I am, is pretty good, for many people, so if people in these now developed countries are living like us, what are our complaints, if this is even possible? Is it that what makes the people happy is still being developed by those lowest classes?

On classes, it seems most people today say they are middle class, but this isn't the case is it? They are just working class thinking they are well off, yes? So what is the working class and what percentage of the population is still working class, as it definitly seems to have changed since the 1800's, which I think would change things from how we viewed things back then.

[darktidus]

I have very similar views to yourself and consider myself an anarcho-syndicalist.

With regards to Keynsian and Neo-Keynsian economic policies, they're generally attempts by the elite to hang on to power, and as capitalism has never really worked, you always need government intervention such as those advocated by Keynes to bail you out.

Ask any capitalist to give you an example of a successful neo-liberal economy. They won't be able to give you one, simply because all successful economies in a capitalist framework have to break the rules of structures like the IMF to succeed.

[Spasiba]

I have very similar views to yourself and consider myself an anarcho-syndicalist.

With regards to Keynsian and Neo-Keynsian economic policies, they're generally attempts by the elite to hang on to power, and as capitalism has never really worked, you always need government intervention such as those advocated by Keynes to bail you out.

Ask any capitalist to give you an example of a successful neo-liberal economy. They won't be able to give you one, simply because all successful economies in a capitalist framework have to break the rules of structures like the IMF to succeed.
I'm sympathetic to Anarcho-syndicalits myself, the flag used to be my avatar.
On 'capitalism has never really worked,' doesn't Ayn Rand talk about that in Atlas Shrugged? Got a good Leftist critique of that?

[Spasiba]

Hoxhaism/Stalinism/Anti-revisionism:
What it seems to be to me:
Follows what Stalin did as good- but what we saw under his rule was him growing his cult of personality, something we should be shunning. He may have industrialized the country, but at what cost? Millions of lives? Also, it seems so dogmatic the way you follow him, as if he is infalliable, Marx as well, but these people were far from perfect, and while I can understand you upholding some of what you say, you can't surely think all that they did was great, and their words the final truth, can you? What we saw under Stalin's reign was no workers paradise, so how can it be said that he was good? To me, he just hindered the movement, creating a bureacracy that served itself, in a way just replacing the ways of old. Now, I know you will call this bourgeois, trotskiest lies, but I must doubt that this is all true. Sure I know I've been told lies about it all, but to such a complete extent? And what is it you hate about Trotsky so much? You say he was somehow working for the bourgeois, even though he was right there the whole time for the revolution, and it was Stalin who worked with them and seemed himself to act as they did. And why do you hate anarchists and socialists as well? One, you alienate yourselves, and two, seem to think that they are too 'idealistic' or something. Truth be told, the way you act seems to be that in a revolution, you would go about deeming people 'counter-revolutionary' for not living up to your standards, and probably have them killed, as Stalin did, despite the fact they are trying their best to help the cause. The revolution is a world-wide struggle for humanity, we need all the people we can get.
Also, anti-revisionism, what does that mean? Excuse me if it's just me taking this too symantically, but to 'revise' would be a good idea, as the manifesto, the teachings of old leaders, etc, are from times long gone. We should update what we believe to fit the times we are living in. In my mind, the revolution must mold to its surroundings to be successful.

Also, the stages I see things as goes like this: ..shit.. -feudalism-capitalism-socialism-communism/anarchism. We see here that captialism is indeed progressive, relatively speaking, and why it is a brutal system, we must admit it has modernized the world and made it industrial- which to me signals the need for revolution- we don't need them anymore, we can handle it on our own. But that to me means that some under-devleloped nations may go through this stage, and even our own may stay like this as well, and it is nothing to be overly upset about, as it is necessary for things to be ripe for a revolution. Of course, I don't know how to judge if its ripe yet, though I do think that at this current point in time, western nations are ready. Point being, despite the captialist system being the disgusting thing it is, we should remember that it does move things forward, and so places that are still feudal-esque or not developed may be expected to go this way first. Of course, I could be compeletly wrong.

Maoism- what is it? Peasant revolt? If so, how can this be applied today? When do you feel the Chinese revolution? (if any of you feel China today is supposed to follow his ideals, feel free to off yourself)
Leninism- what is it? Fedualism to communism? If so, how do you feel you can skip a step, which seems to defy Marxist dialectics, and also, how do you feel things were managed post-russian revolution?

All things considered, I'm sure I've offended at least 85% of you, but please, understand I'm trying to learn and, for the most part, don't hate any of you.!.

[JimmyJazz]

To OP: I'm a democratic socialist/civil libertarian (although I still have sympathies for libertarian socialism, which is where I got my start as a leftist). We should get along well. But I think that as democratic socialists we might both be on the right wing of the spectrum that exists on this board.

I think a lot of leftists are guilty of fetishizing revolution as a means, when they should rather be focusing on educating people about the ends that they seek. A leftist's job in a place like America (and I realize not all posters are necessarily Americans) is not to foment revolution, but rather to educate people, to plan, and to do everything possible to ensure that if there ever is a revolution, we come out on the other end with something better--not worse--than we have now.

[Spasiba]

To OP: I'm a democratic socialist/civil libertarian (although I still have sympathies for libertarian socialism, which is where I got my start as a leftist). We should get along well. But I think that as democratic socialists we might both be on the right wing of the spectrum that exists on this board.

I think a lot of leftists are guilty of fetishizing revolution as a means, when they should rather be focusing on educating people about the ends that they seek. A leftist's job in a place like America (and I realize not all posters are necessarily Americans) is not to foment revolution, but rather to educate people, to plan, and to do everything possible to ensure that if there ever is a revolution, we come out on the other end with something better--not worse--than we have now.
Ah, me? Right wing? Compared to some I guess so :(. But I've been having alot of sympathies lately with communists and anarchists, and we share the same struggle, but it seems I feel more compassionate about defending them, and at some points adopting their thoughts as my own.
When you say democratic socialist, what do you mean? Because to me it means for things to be.. democratic, which I feel is implied but in todays word socialism=slavery, so I feel the need to put it there. I ask because I've seen some accuse me of not believing in revolution but reform, and believe me I'd be all for reform, but I see revolution as the only real way to change things here.
Good post, we should educate people, lest we fall and need others to pick up where we left off. I think we should do what he can to make a revolutionary spirit, but this means nothing if the people have no idea where that will lead them.