'Left-wing politics' = petitebourgeois idealism

[Comrade Vasilev]

Anarchist, Trotskyist, anarcho-syndicalist, libertarian communist, and practically any other kind of 'ist' and 'ism' you can think of. Of course these words are meaningless and have no concrete material basis, usually representing the 'individualist' requirements of a utopian who wants some 'unique' ideology to call their own.

Of course such petty political hacks shouldn't be taken seriously, they just sprout crap off the top of their heads and think it's profound and original, and that they're views are 'special'.

The real problem is people developing their own isolated bourgeois views and then refusing to detach from them. And when you challenge them on this they will get so offended that they cannot see they are attached to ideas just for the sake of having them, and not for any material basis. Just to look at the anarchokids and ultra-lefts on this forum, they have so deluded themselves with bourgeois idealism that they cannot think like a Marxist.

The distinction can be stated quite simply: class background. Anarchokiddies, Trots and the usual liberal bourgeois-idealists who support socialism until they are demanded to step down from their pettybourgeois pedestal. It is most definitely noticed that they have difficulty seeing the necessity of violence in liquidating the bourgeoisie and its agents because they are not effected (or exploited) the way that the working-class is. Better said yet: it doesn't hit them on the head right now since they can STILL gain possession of certain excesses (esp. property) as long as they continue serving as a middleman for the bourgeoisie. So as long as they continue to manage the property, capital, labor for the bourgeois ruling class, it merely does not effect them.

The only reason, however, that it even effects the pettybourgeoisie is that the pettybourgeoisie tries to live like the bourgeoisie and wastes its paycheck on things it doesn't need (excessive property, expensive cars, luxury meals) - but at the end of the day they still have everything that they do "need", while the proletariat does not. So the pettybourgeoisie only complains about "not having extra". It is this very reason that anarchokids and ultra-leftists cannot see beyond bourgeois idealism and pettybourgeois politics. They hate the "ruling class" but they shit on the working-class. Ultimately they want the "best of both worlds". They can't seem to realize that socialism REQUIRES them to give up their excesses as the abolition of class distinctions is not possible without liquidating the bourgeoisie and its agents (most importantly, the petty-bourgeoisie).

These people lack any sort of realism and understanding of what it's really like for working people to get by. It's pretty easy to explain why they hardly ever criticize the bourgeois, they live in their nice little world and as far as they can see things are all good.

Their 'ideas' are therefore basically ideological fetishism, they have an idea or call themselves 'anarchist', geolibertarian socialist' and all manner of ridiculous crap because it makes them feel 'unique', pettybourgeois idealism at it's heart is 'wealthy-kid-individualism'. But also because of their lack of Marxist education they don't realize that the same ideological errors and crap they spew has been spewed for over 200 years and refuted by every good-thinking Marxist materialist who has been around, yet they STILL spew this diatribe and think it's profound, they haven't discovered (or refuse to admit) that their ideas aren't original, and are nothing but political extensions of bourgeois property relations.

If anything it was being brought up in a working class family (with very cynical parents) that made me understand Marx very well as soon as I got into it.

I'd say that anyone who knows what it is to be working class very quickly looses any idealism or Utopianism they ever had. All you have to do is hear the bourgeois media constantly blaring about how we are in a 'free' and 'democratic' country, and then cross examine that with your economic reality, and then you realize very quickly it's all a sham, 'freedom' is the freedom of those in power, not those who toil.

It shouldn't be surprising that when anarchokids and ultra-lefts talk about 'freedom' and when they condemn 'authority' that they sound no different than the bourgeois themselves. And for all intents and purposes they are the same.

[Decolonize The Left]

I would honestly try to respond to this if I didn't think you will be restricted and this moved to the trash, or perhaps the "opposing ideologies" section.

- August

[Comrade Vasilev]

Good to see you can't respond, I have little doubt that is because you feel your bourgeois idealism being threatened by Marxist materialism.

[Decolonize The Left]

Good to see you can't respond, I have little doubt that is because you feel your bourgeois idealism being threatened by Marxist materialism.

I don't think you make a materialist statement in the entire first post. Your whole argument is a series of unjustified claims, opinions on your part, without any basis in reality. All you say is "these people usually are..." or "they are ...." but you offer no argument or evidence. It is worthless for me to break all your statements down as there is nothing to breakdown, there's no argument in the first place.

- August

[communard resolution]

Interesting post. When you say the rich kids are required to give up their excesses to understand Marxism, what exactly do you mean by that? Shall they give away their worldly possessions and get a proper job in a factory?

This may be pushing it, but wasn't Marx a rich kid himself? How on earth did he manage to understand the plight of the working class and achieve revolutionary consciousness without giving up his privileges?

Before you attack me as a, um, petty-bourgeois Tito kiddie or something, let it be known that I'm a worker and have always been.

[Comrade Vasilev]

Interesting post. When you say the rich kids are required to give up their excesses to understand Marxism, what exactly do you mean by that? Shall they give away their worldly possessions and get a proper job in a factory?

This may be pushing it, but wasn't Marx a rich kid himself? How on earth did he manage to understand the plight of the working class and achieve revolutionary consciousness without giving up his privileges?

Before you attack me as a, um, petty-bourgeois Tito kiddie or something, let it be known that I'm a worker and have always been.
Titoism was capitalism, nothing more to be said.

[communard resolution]

Titoism was capitalism, nothing more to be said.

I knew you would say that, but that is not what we're debating here. I asked you a couple of questions in regards to your post.

[The Feral Underclass]

Inexplicable and indecipherable. The OP makes no sense. It's an unfounded diatribe against imaginary things. In order to respond to it you'd have to explain what these ideologies meant and this would require the poster accepting that he was wrong about his misconceptions and that seems unlikely.

[#FF0000]

A wall of text and nothing said. Hm. Well, let me address a few things here, since I'm not wasting time with all of it.



The distinction can be stated quite simply: class background. Anarchokiddies, Trots and the usual liberal bourgeois-idealists who support socialism until they are demanded to step down from their pettybourgeois pedestal. It is most definitely noticed that they have difficulty seeing the necessity of violence in liquidating the bourgeoisie and its agents because they are not effected (or exploited) the way that the working-class is.I am an anarchist. My family's current income is well below the poverty line. My mother works, my father has been looking for work for almost a year. Before he was fired, he was a merchant marine. Nothing Petit-bourgeois about that, is there?


Better said yet: it doesn't hit them on the head right now since they can STILL gain possession of certain excesses (esp. property) as long as they continue serving as a middleman for the bourgeoisie. So as long as they continue to manage the property, capital, labor for the bourgeois ruling class, it merely does not effect them.My family's thousands below the poverty line, and we're going to have trouble paying for our house. I'd say I know the worker's plight.


These people lack any sort of realism and understanding of what it's really like for working people to get by. It's pretty easy to explain why they hardly ever criticize the bourgeois, they live in their nice little world and as far as they can see things are all good.I don't see where you're in a position to make assumptions on anyone's class background, their worldview, their upbringing. You obviously don't know shit about me, or any of the anarchists I know who are in the same position or are worse off than I.

Meanwhile, most of your favorite marxist revolutionaries were "rich kids". Marx? Rich kid. Engels? Owned a damn factory. Lenin? His family was very well-to-do.

What about them? Rich kids can't be anything but Bourgeois, after all.

[communard resolution]

Marx? Rich kid. Engels? Owned a damn factory. Lenin? His family was very well-to-do
Even Stalin came from a petty-bourgeois background and was quite open about it: "I am not the son of a worker. My father was an exploiter."

[Bright Banana Beard]

Meanwhile, most of your favorite marxist revolutionaries were "rich kids". Marx? Rich kid. Engels? Owned a damn factory. Lenin? His family was very well-to-do.

Even Stalin came from a petty-bourgeois background and was quite open about it: "I am not the son of a worker. My father was an exploiter."

Even Marxism and it spin-off is petit-bourgeoisie ideology.:rolleyes:

[Pogue]

Arogant bullshit written by some self-righteous troll who has no idea what he's on about.

[Bakunist]

Your generalizations are sickening man. All of the anarchists worthy of being called such cut straight through utopian idealism with a single breath. You are buying into some major bullshit in believing that Anarchism is utopian. I know very few people from any political extreme or walk of life who feel that things are 'all good'. You know what they say about those who assume.

[Floyce White]

What I've been saying for years.

[Lost In Translation]

I think that when I write this post, I speak for everybody on Revleft that have seen your posts.

First of all, the people that have brought us communism and anarchism may have been well-to-dos. They may have been bourgeois in one sense or another. However, simply because they came from a respectable family, or made considerable amounts of money, does not render them egotistical jerks. Marx and Engels saw what was wrong with the society, and sought out to change it.

Second of all, you cannot expect leftists to promote their ideologies by living a spartan lifestyle. Simply because they believe in something, does not mean the rest of society does as well. Yes, most of us own property, but that is for survival reasons. Deep down, we know that somewhere out there, there is someone that is being exploited by outright bourgeois. However, this does not make us bourgeois simply because we are better off. We know the truth behind capitalism, and we are fighting towards the downfall of it. However, we are only human. We still need to live. Does the necessity of basic needs make us "petitbourgeois" in your books?

Last point I would like to point out is your statement on how we, as the left, are just as bad as the bourgeois. This is bull, Comrade Vasilev. We openly criticize the bourgeois system, instead of covering it all up in a nicely packaged thing known as "democracy". We know what is wrong with it, and we are going to let it out to everybody who isn't yet aware of the situation. We, as the left, are not people who have all the luxuries in the world, and then think back and say "Hey, we should give back to the community. We should make it look like society is filled with equality". We have seen the devastations capitalism has brought to our world. We have been victims of capitalism, and we are here to change.

Your comments are as bad as BOGOVICH, only you are afraid of change, and think everything is bourgeois. Left-wing politics is just a name, nothing else. It is the actions that we as the left bring that truly speaks out to the people.

[RedAnarchist]

Anarchist, Trotskyist, anarcho-syndicalist, libertarian communist, and practically any other kind of 'ist' and 'ism' you can think of. Of course these words are meaningless and have no concrete material basis, usually representing the 'individualist' requirements of a utopian who wants some 'unique' ideology to call their own.

So I presume you don't have an ideology, or at least none that is worthy of a name?


Of course such petty political hacks shouldn't be taken seriously, they just sprout crap off the top of their heads and think it's profound and original, and that they're views are 'special'.

This from a guy who sounds like every "marxist-wannabe" troll we get.


The real problem is people developing their own isolated bourgeois views and then refusing to detach from them. And when you challenge them on this they will get so offended that they cannot see they are attached to ideas just for the sake of having them, and not for any material basis. Just to look at the anarchokids and ultra-lefts on this forum, they have so deluded themselves with bourgeois idealism that they cannot think like a Marxist.

"Bourgeois view! BOURGEOIS!" I thought childish repetition of baseless insults was a reactionary tactic, but you've obviously proven me wrong.


The distinction can be stated quite simply: class background. Anarchokiddies, Trots and the usual liberal bourgeois-idealists who support socialism until they are demanded to step down from their pettybourgeois pedestal. It is most definitely noticed that they have difficulty seeing the necessity of violence in liquidating the bourgeoisie and its agents because they are not effected (or exploited) the way that the working-class is. Better said yet: it doesn't hit them on the head right now since they can STILL gain possession of certain excesses (esp. property) as long as they continue serving as a middleman for the bourgeoisie. So as long as they continue to manage the property, capital, labor for the bourgeois ruling class, it merely does not effect them.

As soon as I saw the word "Anarchokiddies", I stopped reading, as I hope anyone with any sense does.


The only reason, however, that it even effects the pettybourgeoisie is that the pettybourgeoisie tries to live like the bourgeoisie and wastes its paycheck on things it doesn't need (excessive property, expensive cars, luxury meals) - but at the end of the day they still have everything that they do "need", while the proletariat does not. So the pettybourgeoisie only complains about "not having extra". It is this very reason that anarchokids and ultra-leftists cannot see beyond bourgeois idealism and pettybourgeois politics. They hate the "ruling class" but they shit on the working-class. Ultimately they want the "best of both worlds". They can't seem to realize that socialism REQUIRES them to give up their excesses as the abolition of class distinctions is not possible without liquidating the bourgeoisie and its agents (most importantly, the petty-bourgeoisie).

Are you a lifestylist by any chance?


These people lack any sort of realism and understanding of what it's really like for working people to get by. It's pretty easy to explain why they hardly ever criticize the bourgeois, they live in their nice little world and as far as they can see things are all good.

And yet Anarchism as a movement is growing worldwide. I can't wonder why so many working class people would support a movement that has no idea of the lives they lead.:rolleyes:


Their 'ideas' are therefore basically ideological fetishism, they have an idea or call themselves 'anarchist', geolibertarian socialist' and all manner of ridiculous crap because it makes them feel 'unique', pettybourgeois idealism at it's heart is 'wealthy-kid-individualism'. But also because of their lack of Marxist education they don't realize that the same ideological errors and crap they spew has been spewed for over 200 years and refuted by every good-thinking Marxist materialist who has been around, yet they STILL spew this diatribe and think it's profound, they haven't discovered (or refuse to admit) that their ideas aren't original, and are nothing but political extensions of bourgeois property relations.

Over 200 years? Marxism is only about 160 years old and Anarchism as a modern political ideology is even younger. Marx himself wasn't even around 200 years ago!


If anything it was being brought up in a working class family (with very cynical parents) that made me understand Marx very well as soon as I got into it.

Of course, you're the epitome of working class and everyone else here is petit-bourgois. Have fun with that oversized ego of yours. Of course, someone who constantly needs to point out that they are something often either aren't or are insecure in their belief that they are.


I'd say that anyone who knows what it is to be working class very quickly looses any idealism or Utopianism they ever had. All you have to do is hear the bourgeois media constantly blaring about how we are in a 'free' and 'democratic' country, and then cross examine that with your economic reality, and then you realize very quickly it's all a sham, 'freedom' is the freedom of those in power, not those who toil.

So why do you believe in something? If you have no ideals, how can you be anything other than apathetic?


It shouldn't be surprising that when anarchokids and ultra-lefts talk about 'freedom' and when they condemn 'authority' that they sound no different than the bourgeois themselves. And for all intents and purposes they are the same.

And out comes the silly names again! Grow up and some day we might actually take you seriously.

[apathy maybe]

Don't feed the trolls! Oh wait.

'Left-wing politics' = petitebourgeois idealism
That must mean you are a right-wing prick. RESTRICT!

What I've been saying for years.
Yeah, but you have made as much sense (i.e. none) as this fucker. But if you really think that left-wingism is a bad thing, then you must be a right-winger fucker as well. Fuck off with you too.


So, you have left-wing, right-wing, and third positionism. Around here, if you aren't left-wing you are scum, right-winger scum gets restricted, and fascists get banned.

Which are you?

[RedAnarchist]

What I've been saying for years.

What are you referring to?

[Raoul_RedRat]

Ok I started a whole dissertation in which I also tried to do some justice to your complaint. But after some short reflection I deemed it reasonable to not respond with such courtesy seeing that you generalize a complete unknown group of people. And not only do you generalize, you mock them for being from the wrong sort of genesis.

Your faillure is not that of being anti-revolutionary or rightwing, rather you make the ancient mistake of thinking you know truth but lack self-consciousness and modesty to question these pressumed certainties. You validate this arrogant disposition by painting 'the other' as foolish, and becom a god in your own thoughts.

I blame you for stupidity and as such there should be a seperate forum for you. I respect those who critisize the revolution more than you.

[Bilan]

Anarchist, Trotskyist, anarcho-syndicalist, libertarian communist, and practically any other kind of 'ist' and 'ism' you can think of. Of course these words are meaningless and have no concrete material basis, usually representing the 'individualist' requirements of a utopian who wants some 'unique' ideology to call their own.

You are seriously a fucking idiot. Holy fucking shit.

What utter baseless garbage.

Anarchism = a revolutionary ideology which rejects hierarchical forms of organization, and struggles for a society absent of class and social hierarchies. It is a basis for a revolutionary ideology, much like Marxism is treated as by Leninists.
Trotskyism = A strand of Marxism based heavily on the writings of Trotsky. It is an extension of Marxism, and is heavily critical of Stalin (and Stalinism).
Anarcho-Syndicalism = Part of the revolutionary anarchist movement; it's definitive characteristic is its support for the use of revolutionary unionism (Historic example: CNT)
Libertarian Communism = Libertarian Communism has existed as long as the idea of anarchism, historically, its use has been related to the surpression of anarchist ideas (hence the differentiation in term). It is also used in modern times by anarchist to remove themselves from the baggage attached by (hacks like you, and the bourgeois press) to "anarchism". IT is essentially self-managed communism which rejects the idea of a statist (Leninist state) transition to communism, and insists on libertarian forms of organization (Organizations which stress direct democracy, total self management, autonomy, etc).

However, for the sake of you being a fucking moron, I will point out some other isms:

Marxism.
Leninism.
Stalinism.
Trotskyism.
Maoism.

Maybe you should read what you post first, dumbass?



The real problem is people developing their own isolated bourgeois views and then refusing to detach from them. And when you challenge them on this they will get so offended that they cannot see they are attached to ideas just for the sake of having them, and not for any material basis. Just to look at the anarchokids and ultra-lefts on this forum, they have so deluded themselves with bourgeois idealism that they cannot think like a Marxist.

This is unsubstantiated bullshit.

You don't think like a Marxist. You speak like a fucking dolt. A solid reflection, eh?



The distinction can be stated quite simply: class background. Anarchokiddies, Trots and the usual liberal bourgeois-idealists who support socialism until they are demanded to step down from their pettybourgeois pedestal.

Like when?



It is most definitely noticed that they have difficulty seeing the necessity of violence in liquidating the bourgeoisie and its agents because they are not effected (or exploited) the way that the working-class is.

For a proclaimed Marxist, you don't seem to substantiate any of your claims with material facts, or any history.
Anarchists have been well active in violence against the state. Infact, piss ants like you, although obviously not you personally, accuse anarchists of just being violent (Though the ones your accusing of being "to violent" usually aren't anarchists, but you seem to work well in your own little world :lol: God forbid you could be ground on this one!).

Also, the CNT was undoubtably most militant anti-fascist militias in Spain in the Spanish Civil War, not only that, but one of the most powerful, and it was anarchist.

You are just full of shit.


Better said yet: it doesn't hit them on the head right now since they can STILL gain possession of certain excesses (esp. property) as long as they continue serving as a middleman for the bourgeoisie. So as long as they continue to manage the property, capital, labor for the bourgeois ruling class, it merely does not effect them.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you suggesting anarchists are part of the mom-and-pop bourgeoisie? Are you high or something?

-

I'm actually fuming after reading that utter tripe.
Seriously, you need to get a clue; you're being an arrogant, dishonest twat.

There is a section in the anarchist group, for queries on theory (http://www.revleft.com/vb/queries-theory-t83290/index.html). I want you to read this before you post such crap again.

[al8]

It is most definitely noticed that they have difficulty seeing the necessity of violence in liquidating the bourgeoisie and its agents because they are not effected (or exploited) the way that the working-class is.

This is not a problem I've seen in with comrades on this board. Only by posters of a religious bent have I seen non-violence and forgiveness made an abstract virtue.

However the tactic of non-violence vs. violence depending on context and specific situations is of course contested. And normally so. By no means does that mean most of us reject finishing class enemies off but only how best to do it.

[Vendetta]

Anarchist, Trotskyist, anarcho-syndicalist, libertarian communist, and practically any other kind of 'ist' and 'ism' you can think of.

Marxism?

[Floyce White]

Floyce White: "What I've been saying for years."

Red Anarchist: "What are you referring to?"

My Antiproperty (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html) essays from September 2001 onwards, and many posts to the same effect on this message board.

apathy maybe: "But if you really think that left-wingism is a bad thing, then you must be a right-winger..."

Non-sequitur. You did not yet prove that leftism is and can only be the same as the workers' struggle. In fact, you cannot prove it, as I explained in my third post at Revleft (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=579803&postcount=5). Your feigned indignation and use of personal attacks is further evidence of your lack of argument.

What's more, if after five thousand posts you still curse at members and threaten to try to ban members when they disagree, I'd say that you effectively make Comrade Vasilev's point for him.

Raoul Red Rat: "But after some short reflection I deemed it reasonable to not respond with such courtesy seeing that you generalize a complete unknown group of people."

Just because Comrade Vasilev makes several ad hominem fallacies does not excuse you doing the same. His overall criticism did not appear to be directed at any specific individuals, but rather at the attitudes and actions of a class. As such, it has merit.

[Bilan]

Just because Comrade Vasilev makes several ad hominem fallacies does not excuse you doing the same. His overall criticism did not appear to be directed at any specific individuals, but rather at the attitudes and actions of a class. As such, it has merit.

IT has no merit what so ever.
His entire post is a fictious, inane, arrogant ramble, with no historical or even basic political back bone toward his criticisms.
Especially that of anarchism.

I do appreciate intelligent criticisms of anarchism, and anarchists, and I find that they rarely come from Marxists (They have, however), and are usually from within the anarchist movement who are conscious of what anarchism actually aims for, and are prepared to use actual anarchist theory to criticise its inefficiencies and problems (For example, through forms of organization, approach to 'hierarchy' and 'authority' and what they actually mean, etc), rather than creating it, or using 19th Century anti-anarchist propaganda which is full of fallacies and inaccuracies (Such as Marx's criticisms)*.

The fact that it was not at particular individuals does not make his post any more worthy of appreciation. It is baseless crap.


* As I pointed out in another thread, Marx was only in contact with two "Major" anarchist theorists, Proudhon and Bakunin (And he refered to Weber, I believe), he was not, however, in contact with more important theorists such as Kropotkin. Furthermore, Marx was not even alive when anarchism - and anarcho-syndicalism and anarchist communism - really took off and had their most explosive moments - both in the Factory committees in the Russian Revolution, in Ukraine, and probably most importantly, in Spain. He was also not around for many important anarchist theorists such as Rudolf Rocker (syndicalist - Germany), Errico Malatesta (Communist - Italy), Berkman (communist - USA[though, I think he was originally from Russia?]), Makhno [and Russian Emigrants] (communist/Platformist - Ukraine), and many, many others. So how can Marxists still use his criticism, whilst neglecting the real basis and most important theoretical works from the anarchist movement, and then claim to understand it?
It is only because they believe exactly what Marx said - and its true, Marx's criticisms of Proudhon as petit-bourgeois are true - that they come to the illogical conclusion that anarchism is petit-bourgeois.

[Die Neue Zeit]

From p. 87 of Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered:


Thus, the merger narrative laid the foundation for a two-front polemical war aimed against all who defend the continued isolation of either socialism or the worker movement. The technical term within Social-Democratic discourse for the effort to keep the worker-class struggle free from socialism was Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei, "trade-unions-only-ism."

Quoting Lenin:


For the spontaneist working-class movement is tred iunionizm [yellow-trade-union reductionism], is Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei, and tred iunionizm means the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie

Back to Lih:


A similar "Nur" term could have been coined for bomb-throwing revolutionaries who continued to think that it was a waste of time to try to propagandise and educate the worker class as a whole prior to the revolution.

[Bilan]

From p. 87 of Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered:



Quoting Lenin:



Back to Lih:

What relevance have any of they?