what does this make me?

[534634634265]

what if want to see the state take the role its supposed to take? the state, as i see it, is in place to help the people. it is OF the people, and thus should be BY and FOR the people, right?
so, i feel that the state should control itself. no deficit spending, no unprovoked military action. no bailing out private industries or failing private banks. the state should provide free education to a college level, and free health-care to all. the state should offer not welfare, but work to anyone who needs it. it should offer all that we need, because its made up of US the people. everyone should have an equal say in how the decisions that affect their lives are made.
am i a socialist or a reformist or a conservative or what? my political views have confused me and kept me from siding with any one faction or another. i'm resigned simply to a lifetime of exploiting any system(which doesn't offer everything i need) to the greatest extent possible in order to have all that i need and want. ask me questions please, help me flesh this out into a legitimate ideology instead of an amalgamation of concerns, irritants, and demands.

[F9]

why you need a state to give you a job,why you need a state to have a free health care,why you need state for free education?
state doesnt help you with all of this,it doesnt give you your rights it takes them away.It is a little weird believing that all the above are provided by the state and you need one to have them.To have them must be NO state.

Fuserg9:star:

[534634634265]

why you need a state to give you a job,why you need a state to have a free health care,why you need state for free education?
state doesnt help you with all of this,it doesnt give you your rights it takes them away.It is a little weird believing that all the above are provided by the state and you need one to have them.To have them must be NO state.

Fuserg9:star:
but having a state/authority doesn't mean you CANT have those things either. my thought is that if "the state" was organized by the common man to help the common man, then why doesn't it do just that? i don't see how the belief that man will exist in a lawless void isn't a pipe dream, just as you likely think the same about the existence of a benevolent authority. think about your parents. they restrict their young only for what they perceive as the good of those young. since the majority of people aren't well versed in socio-political thought and economics, it makes sense that somehow you will have an organization to whom you leave those leadership responsibilities. lets call it commitees instead, does that make it more palatable for you?

[Incendiarism]

Socialist.

[F9]

but having a state/authority doesn't mean you CANT have those things either. my thought is that if "the state" was organized by the common man to help the common man, then why doesn't it do just that?


it may do it but you wont need the state it in final station,if the people are aware of what they doing and start organizing for the benefit of the whole community then state will be totally useless,because people are going to take care of everthing.So if the common wo/man help the common wo/man then we will find what we want communism with no need of state or anything else.


Fuserg9:star:

[shorelinetrance]

Socialism has a "state". If you look at a few countries Denmark, Finland and Norway they all have bastardized socialized systems and they have the highest living standards in the world.

[revolution inaction]

what if want to see the state take the role its supposed to take? the state, as i see it, is in place to help the people. it is OF the people, and thus should be BY and FOR the people, right?
Believing this means you are naive/ignorant :) The propose of the state is to protect the current order, from the generally population. The state is something that allows a tiny minority to rule over the majority, and every thing about it is structured to reflect that, so it can not be reformed or modified for use by the the people as a whole, so we will have to form our own organisations with which to run society.
I am strongly in favour of society being organised and run by all the people directly, but the form of organisation required for this is so different from any current or previous state that it is absurd to give them the same name, and likely to lead to confusion about what is intended, although I can understand why you used the word state.



am i a socialist or a reformist or a conservative or what? my political views have confused me and kept me from siding with any one faction or another. i'm resigned simply to a lifetime of exploiting any system(which doesn't offer everything i need) to the greatest extent possible in order to have all that i need and want. ask me questions please, help me flesh this out into a legitimate ideology instead of an amalgamation of concerns, irritants, and demands.
Right now I'd say you where some kind of socialist



but having a state/authority doesn't mean you CANT have those things either. my thought is that if "the state" was organized by the common man to help the common man, then why doesn't it do just that? i don't see how the belief that man will exist in a lawless void isn't a pipe dream,

'lawless void' is a rather negative way of putting it :) I'v never personally changed my behaviour because or the law, if you only do good not bad because some one tells you then you have major personal problems. That doesn't mean I think people should be allowed to do anything they like regardless of the consequences, just anything that doesn't harm anyone else.
Your idea that "the state" should be run by the common people is relatively radical compared to mainstream political thought, I would say that the only way society could be organised to help the common person is if it is organised by the common person.



just as you likely think the same about the existence of a benevolent authority. think about your parents. they restrict their young only for what they perceive as the good of those young. since the majority of people aren't well versed in socio-political thought and economics, it makes sense that somehow you will have an organization to whom you leave those leadership responsibilities. lets call it commitees instead, does that make it more palatable for you?
Any one having leadership responsibilities is unacceptable, it always brakes down into one group of people ruling over everyone else. For society to be run to everyone's benefit it needs to be run by everyone. Although most people are not currently familiar with doing this the practice of doing something is many times better they reading theory for years. This is one reason why I am in favour of anarcho-syndicalism, it means people get plenty of practice of running organisations for themselves before any revolution occurs.

[Cult of Reason]

crackedlogic: I would say you were a Social Democrat in the sense that you want to make the bad effects of Capitalism less. While I am by no means an expert, you might be a Bennite. Have you heard of/read about Tony Benn?

[revolution inaction]

Socialism has a "state". If you look at a few countries Denmark, Finland and Norway they all have bastardized socialized systems and they have the highest living standards in the world.
These countries are not socialist, its just that there governments have been forced by social struggle to give some concessions, they did this in order to protect there own position and that of the capitalist that have interests there, if people don't keep up there struggle then the improvements will be reversed, as has been happening in countries like the uk

[Decolonize The Left]

what if want to see the state take the role its supposed to take? the state, as i see it, is in place to help the people. it is OF the people, and thus should be BY and FOR the people, right?

Ah, here you have referred to the theoretical basis for a democracy. Yet a democracy (a government for, of, and by, the people) does not necessitate a state (an institution with the legitimate use of force/the organ of class oppression).


so, i feel that the state should control itself. no deficit spending, no unprovoked military action. no bailing out private industries or failing private banks. the state should provide free education to a college level, and free health-care to all. the state should offer not welfare, but work to anyone who needs it.

It sounds like you would be a welfare capitalist (see France, Germany, as loose examples).


it should offer all that we need, because its made up of US the people. everyone should have an equal say in how the decisions that affect their lives are made.

Ah, but the state is not made up "of US the people." Are you a member of the state? You may be a citizen, but you have no control over governmental actions - and the government acts in the name of the state...

From the last sentence quoted above, you seem to have anarchist/communist leanings, but your support for the state means you are not either.


am i a socialist or a reformist or a conservative or what? my political views have confused me and kept me from siding with any one faction or another. i'm resigned simply to a lifetime of exploiting any system(which doesn't offer everything i need) to the greatest extent possible in order to have all that i need and want. ask me questions please, help me flesh this out into a legitimate ideology instead of an amalgamation of concerns, irritants, and demands.

Well, as I mentioned earlier, you seem to be a welfare capitalist/democrat. In other words, you would fit in well with the 'left' parties of reformist action (in the US, the green party would be a prime example).

You are certainly not an anarchist/communist, for both these theories oppose the state for many, justified, reasons. I hope this helps - please ask for further clarification on any point.

- August

[GPDP]

Indeed, at the moment, you would be, at best, a social democrat, but I'd say that is not sufficient grounds to restrict you, not yet, at least, as you are still confused and trying to make sense of all these things.

You have a vague idea of what your leanings are, and one could say they are socialistic, but you seem to lack the theoretical and historical understanding to properly arrange your beliefs in any way other than what you have been exposed to by the system, hence your reliance on there being a state, albeit a thoroughly democratic state. Most Marxists, of course, would also agree that a "proletarian" state should be completely democratic, but they do not see this state as an end, but a means to an ultimately stateless end, whereas at the moment, you cannot conceive of a stateless society, and apparently only wish for a democratic state.

So, I would suggest to the rest of the RevLeft community to give this person a chance. Until he shows that he is thoroughly convinced that we cannot do better than social democracy, he should not be restricted. But that is my opinion.

[534634634265]

why does support of theoretical democracy make me a capitalist? i don't support exploitation of any group, and i see the system of work for pay as exploitative of those who do the work.
i also feel like its going to be easier for me to simply keep quiet and slip through the cracks of whatever system is in place, taking from any who seem to have too much.
im reading about benn now, and he seems like an alright guy though i have yet to form a solid opinion about him.
why does the majority here seem so ready to label me a reactionary, without asking any questions to flesh out what im trying to figure out? are you all so desperate to push people away from this website?
you are all certainly correct that i am not an anarchist or a communist. i find both of those concepts to be bullshit utopian idealism. sorry if i just tread on anyones long toes.
i don't understand how my use of the word state has the negative connotation you seem to give it. i see "the state" as the governing body, be it an individual, or a committee. i didn't ask to be called naive or ignorant because i don't share your crazed beliefs concerning the gleaming ability of man to live in harmony without any sort of rules or organization. if i wanted to live in an unorganized shithole like that, i could easily move to some 3rd world dive and live my life like a king, exploiting the people and the environment.
i agree that i have no control over my government, and no where do i claim to like how things are now. i think the two party system coupled with the electoral college is denying every person the power that a democracy implies they have. i simply see it as a simpler life to exploit,consume, and subvert the system that is in place. as opposed to actively opposing it and being labeled a crazy and shunned. i have a child to think about, and i'd rather not be blacklisted. the state you hate so much is quite effective at ruining your life if they feel like it.

[Decolonize The Left]

Firstly, before I address your post, I never said you were a reactionary, or that you deserved a ban, or anything in that vein. I'm sorry if my response was interpreted that way, but I did my best to phrase it in a kind a manner as possible.


why does support of theoretical democracy make me a capitalist? i don't support exploitation of any group, and i see the system of work for pay as exploitative of those who do the work.
i also feel like its going to be easier for me to simply keep quiet and slip through the cracks of whatever system is in place, taking from any who seem to have too much.

It is not your support of a theoretical democracy that makes you a capitalist, it is your willingness to let such an economic system continue to function that does.



im reading about benn now, and he seems like an alright guy though i have yet to form a solid opinion about him.
why does the majority here seem so ready to label me a reactionary, without asking any questions to flesh out what im trying to figure out? are you all so desperate to push people away from this website?

I have no such intentions, only to answer your questions. I do not see how you are drawing such ideas from my previous post.



you are all certainly correct that i am not an anarchist or a communist. i find both of those concepts to be bullshit utopian idealism. sorry if i just tread on anyones long toes.

You will most certainly tread on toes with that sort of black-and-white sweeping statement. Many individuals here do not find anarchism or communism utopian, myself being one, and would be happy to explain why should you desire to hear.



i don't understand how my use of the word state has the negative connotation you seem to give it. i see "the state" as the governing body, be it an individual, or a committee.

Then it is clear that you do not have a good grasp on political theory.

Most political theorists (not just radical ones) define the state as an institution which possesses the legitimate use of force. Anarchists also adopt this definition. Marxists, on the other hand, define the state as the organ of class oppression (so in our capitalist republic, the capitalist class oppresses the working class through the state).

What you have described in the quoted section above is the government. The government operates in the name of the state, and executes functions on its behalf.


i didn't ask to be called naive or ignorant because i don't share your crazed beliefs concerning the gleaming ability of man to live in harmony without any sort of rules or organization. if i wanted to live in an unorganized shithole like that, i could easily move to some 3rd world dive and live my life like a king, exploiting the people and the environment.

Anarchism and communism have nothing to do with lack of organization and rules. They do have to do with lack of oppression and exploitation.


i agree that i have no control over my government, and no where do i claim to like how things are now. i think the two party system coupled with the electoral college is denying every person the power that a democracy implies they have. i simply see it as a simpler life to exploit,consume, and subvert the system that is in place. as opposed to actively opposing it and being labeled a crazy and shunned. i have a child to think about, and i'd rather not be blacklisted. the state you hate so much is quite effective at ruining your life if they feel like it.

I cannot say whether or not you will be restricted to the Opposing Ideologies section. I, personally, do not feel that is necessary.

The state I hate so much does not run my life. It may try to, and attempt to impose itself upon me; it may oppress me; it may even deny me freedom and equality; but I am still a free agent and I run my life.

If you do have a child to care for, you have responsibilities which I do not. I am confident you will handle them. The question for you then, is not whether or not you can live under this system of oppression and exploitation (for you have said you can, and will), but what type of world do you want your child to live in?

- August

[534634634265]

sorry august,
we misunderstand each other. my replies were towards all and were general, not towards you specifically. you've been fairly helpful and i don't want to diminish that.
its not that i wish to see the system continue, but that i have been shown no clear means of bringing about change.
state,government, same body under a different title as far as i am concerned. what you call the state wouldn't exist if the government wasn't an oppressive one. the need to oppress or exert force over others isn't a prerequisite for a government, and could be eliminated without eliminating the governing body.
ahh, but where you see as ending oppression, i see you instituting a lawless and chaotic landscape. even in such ideally "anarchist" settings as the Paris Commune, there still existed a governing body.
i want my daughter to live in a world much better than mine, but i possess only the means to create what of it i can through the current system. to challenge the current system is to garuantee her inability to live such a free life. i agree that we run our own lives, but if i become an open source of dissent i can hardly be suprised if i find myself imprisoned with NO rights as opposed to a limited number. i don't believe in choosing the lesser evil, i'd rather there be no evil at all. but the anarchist ideal of achieving this evil-less state is ridiculous to me, as is the communist one. maybe through a transition to socialism can my daughter live in the world i wish to create for her.

also, tony benn, what great guy. how unfortunate he had so little power. i believe i may now call myself a bennite socialist? is that correct terminology? maybe a bennite social democrat? i don't know what to say. i thought "social democrats" was the snoody name for fascists.

[revolution inaction]

state,government, same body under a different title as far as i am concerned. what you call the state wouldn't exist if the government wasn't an oppressive one. the need to oppress or exert force over others isn't a prerequisite for a government, and could be eliminated without eliminating the governing body.
ahh, but where you see as ending oppression, i see you instituting a lawless and chaotic landscape. even in such ideally "anarchist" settings as the Paris Commune, there still existed a governing body.
The Paris Commune was not ideally anarchist, the council was not efficient for getting things done and was beginning to display different interests to the rest of the population before the end, and this was despite being instantly recallable.
I wanted to link an article but I don't have enough posts, there are severally articles about the paris commune on libcom that are worth reading.

Any system which grants power to a minority is oppressive, anarchists think society should be organised by the people who make up society. This is not the same as a government.
Power attracts the worst members of society and corrupts the best, to believe that a minority can rule for the good of all is extreme utopianism, and simple contre to all observably facts.