Do the ist's really matter?

[Anarch_Mesa]

As I browse political forums one thing that turns me away from many is the whole ist factor. You have communists,anarchists,marxists,anarcho-communists, and any others that you decide to invent. I feel like some of these boards are becoming Christianity you have Catholics,Baptists, and all those others. Socialists and Communist may as well be a person who wants chocolate cake and another who wants chocolate cake but one wants a yellow fork and the other a bright yellow. Marxist are communist and Anarcho-Communist are just a mix. I don't like seeing threads and posts about "Hey guys I'm leaning between Anarchism and Totalitarianism" which first of all countradict eachother, people just want to have a cool title. People need to actually have ideas and fight for those not a title.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm a libertarian socialist with leaning towards anarcho-communism and a mild appetite for mutualist individualism - while greatly despising right-Rothbardian and Friedmonian anarcho-capitalist individualism, and all those who uphold the propertarian line. :laugh:

[Dystisis]

I agree with the OP, titles without specific ideas and goals means nothing.

[PigmerikanMao]

I tend to see it as we are all leftists. Although we are all divided into little, cute, sub categories, we're still leftists in the end. That's what matters mostly... that and we keep all the bigots in opposing ideologies forum with other sensible leftists the admins think to disagree with.

~PMao :laugh:

[Dros]

Without a revolutionary theory there is no revolution. The "ists" are just labels for collections of ideas. We could change the labels pretty easily. What's important is that we struggle for the most revolutionary and scientific ideology.

[Anarch_Mesa]

I'm a libertarian socialist with leaning towards anarcho-communism and a mild appetite for mutualist individualism - while greatly despising right-Rothbardian and Friedmonian anarcho-capitalist individualism, and all those who uphold the propertarian line.


ME TOO! :laugh:


The "ists" are just labels for collections of ideas

I don't think this is absolutley true. While some people do believe every idea that their "ist" has to offer. Most people would choose what they agree most with, which often leads to misunderstandings.

I think that alot of us struggle to find their "ist" while we do agree with some theories we also try to find a point to which all of our ideas blend into one perfect one word statement which is sometimes a little rediculous. As the other poster said I like to think of all people as not necissarily leftists, but as revolutionarys. I have nothing against your "old-school" americans fighting for there rights and their constitution. Altho I don't agree with Capitalism I do think they have their rights and if they want to figh for it go ahead.

[COVARE]

yeah theres not a ton of "its" and "isms" coming from the right....

[Anarch_Mesa]

yeah theres not a ton of "its" and "isms" coming from the right....


More ists than you think its an across the board system.

[Slovo]

Hi, Anarch_Mesa. I consider myself simply a Marxist who is influenced by a lot of different things. Even when I had simply anarchist politics I preferred the general term of 'Marxist' over anarchist. I think that often different 'isms' prevent people of different ideologies engaging in objective, thoughtful discussion because there is often this imaginary divide 'you believe in this collection of ideas, I believe in this one'. I think whilst labelling one's ideas can be an easier thing to do in identifying these ideas for others it can also lead to a sort of ideological laziness and sectarianism. That is the reason why I choose to identify only as a Marxist. I am willing to (and I want to) discuss my political opinions with other Marxists without coming at the discussion from two opposing perspectives - I am one ism, you are another - rather from the same perspective of 'Marxist', of communist. I think that 'isms' can be an excuse to avoid discussion, to justify a lack of communication within the socialist movement - we shouldn't be labelling our beliefs as specific sects, perspectives that are just naturally different, but engage in discussion with one another, compromise the best we can and learn from it. :)

[RHIZOMES]

yeah theres not a ton of "its" and "isms" coming from the right....

No.

Anarcho-capitalism
Consevatism
Neoconservatism
Fascism
Objectivism
Libertarianism
Corporativism
New Labourism

Feel free to add anymore guys.

[professorchaos]

Plenty of "ism"s on the right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Conservatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Libertarianism_expanded
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fascism_expanded

[shorelinetrance]

completely agree.

i've read tons of theory, but i still am a fan of sectarianism(haha ism :D) after the revolution.

[Decolonize The Left]

As I browse political forums one thing that turns me away from many is the whole ist factor. You have communists,anarchists,marxists,anarcho-communists, and any others that you decide to invent. I feel like some of these boards are becoming Christianity you have Catholics,Baptists, and all those others. Socialists and Communist may as well be a person who wants chocolate cake and another who wants chocolate cake but one wants a yellow fork and the other a bright yellow. Marxist are communist and Anarcho-Communist are just a mix. I don't like seeing threads and posts about "Hey guys I'm leaning between Anarchism and Totalitarianism" which first of all countradict eachother, people just want to have a cool title. People need to actually have ideas and fight for those not a title.

The "-isms" of which you speak are a natural outcome of ideological/theoretical divisions in leftist revolutionary theory. It is difficult to maintain an atmosphere free of "-isms" when people seem to occupy divergent and clearly differentiated positions on different issues. Granted that most "anarcho-?" positions can be summed up under "anarchism," and that many other "-isms" could be synthesized or made simpler, it seems as though many people who add adjectives or new words to their ideologies do so out of identity.

- August

[PigmerikanMao]

No.

Anarcho-capitalism
Consevatism
Neoconservatism
Fascism
Objectivism
Libertarianism
Corporativism
New Labourism

Feel free to add anymore guys.

umm... NAZISM?! :rolleyes:

[Winter]

How "isms" are created:

Leftist #1: Let's smash the state and create a workers utopia of direct democracy!

Leftist #2: Yea! But first we must use the state as a means of obtaining your objective.

Leftist #1: What!? So long as the state exists oppression will never end! We can't use the state for anything positive!

Leftist #2: But wait, how do you suggest the working class survives a counter-revolution? The bourgeois will surely reclaim the state and create even more oppressive policies!

Leftist #1: Okay, we'll come back to this discussion. We must make sure only the working class is involved in this revolution though, peasants will be counter productive.

Leftist #2: Wait, what? You do realize the majority of the population in our country are peasants right? They don't have to lead the revolution, but they must be involved somehow if we wish to obtain victory.

Leftist #1: Er, we'll come back to that issue, but one thing that must be neccesary is.............

Leftist #2: What?! No!!!

[nuisance]

umm... NAZISM?! :rolleyes:
I don't think that AB was trying to name every single right-winged 'ist'. So your attempt at mockery really failed.

[Anarch_Mesa]

i've read tons of theory, but i still am a fan of sectarianism(haha ism http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-ists-really-t86780/revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif) after the revolution.


Ya I agree that you need to have your opinions after the revolution, but as long as people are arguing about what to do afterwards then the actuall revolution is never going to happen.

[Winter]

Ya I agree that you need to have your opinions after the revolution, but as long as people are arguing about what to do afterwards then the actuall revolution is never going to happen.

The arguments and disagreements between different ideaologies within the Leftist movement is not about what to do afterwards, it's about how to get to a stateless, classless, society without currency.

[nuisance]

Ya I agree that you need to have your opinions after the revolution, but as long as people are arguing about what to do afterwards then the actuall revolution is never going to happen.
It's not just afterwards. We disagree on alota things.
Well the revolutions that have taken place seem to disagree with you. Also I believe that is the working class that revolts, not a select number of people whom have certain political affliations. The role of the revoluntionary organisation is to form a leadership of ideas, not start revolution. Why take the working class somewhere they aren't ready to go?

[Dros]

[FONT=Arial]I don't think this is absolutley true. While some people do believe every idea that their "ist" has to offer. Most people would choose what they agree most with, which often leads to misunderstandings.

Ideology is not dogma. Communism is a science. Our theory and our understanding is always changing. People who don't have to agree with everything there author of choice ever said and if they do they are probably being very unscientific and religious about their theory. I'm a Maoist. I don't agree with everything Mao ever did or said. Maoism is a scientific theory and as such, I can criticize and learn from Mao's mistakes. I'm still a Maoist even though I occasionally disagree with Mao himself!


I think that alot of us struggle to find their "ist" while we do agree with some theories we also try to find a point to which all of our ideas blend into one perfect one word statement which is sometimes a little rediculous. As the other poster said I like to think of all people as not necissarily leftists, but as revolutionarys.

Ummm... What?


I have nothing against your "old-school" americans fighting for there rights and their constitution. Altho I don't agree with Capitalism I do think they have their rights and if they want to figh for it go ahead.

:confused:????

So what's your point. You're saying that reactionaries can fight for their understanding as well. Firstly, they don't really need your permission. They're doing fine all by themselves. Secondly, so what? In the end, these people are our enemies. They are precisely not revolutionaries. They are counter revolutionaries. What's your point?

[Anarch_Mesa]

So what's your point. You're saying that reactionaries can fight for their understanding as well. Firstly, they don't really need your permission. They're doing fine all by themselves. Secondly, so what? In the end, these people are our enemies. They are precisely not revolutionaries. They are counter revolutionaries. What's your point?

I'm not calling them my ally or enemy I am simply stating that all people have their rights.

And I wasn't giving permission I was stating a fact. If you so die heartingly need something to argue about because you think you have to prove that your SMARTER or BETTER than people than that's not my problem.

[redarmyfaction38]

I'm not calling them my ally or enemy I am simply stating that all people have their rights.

And I wasn't giving permission I was stating a fact. If you so die heartingly need something to argue about because you think you have to prove that your SMARTER or BETTER than people than that's not my problem.

i've answered on your latest posting, because i think the thread it created answered your question;).
isms arise because comrades take their eyes off the prize and ignore the simple truths.
the working class are the only class capable of delivering a "socialist/communist/anarchist" revolution.
in the past, in the revolutionary period, all the isms, tend to be brushed aside by actual events.
once the working class move to secure political and economic control of society, we will act in our interest, political niceities, theoretical disagreements and the "rights" of our former rulers wil mean sweet f.a.

[Dros]

I'm not calling them my ally or enemy I am simply stating that all people have their rights.

Great. They have the right to have their opinions. They have profoundly reactionary opinions that are completely opposed to any kind of progress. What's your point?


If you so die heartingly need something to argue about because you think you have to prove that your SMARTER or BETTER than people than that's not my problem.

:lol::lol::lol:

I have plenty of things to argue about and no need to prove that I'm smarter or better. Everyone who knows me already thinks I am!:rolleyes:

I'm not entirely clear about what you're getting at here. You seem to be an anarchist (or some variation on that theme). And you continue to reassert the fact that reactionary persons can express their views. So what? Their vision of the future is entirely opposed to ours. They aren't our friends. What is your point?!

[Black Dagger]

No.

Anarcho-capitalism
Consevatism
Neoconservatism
Fascism
Objectivism
Libertarianism
Corporativism
New Labourism

Feel free to add anymore guys.

What's the difference between 'anarcho-capitalism' and 'libertarianism'?