Openness to New Ideas from the Left?

[PostAnarchy]

As I said earlier, I am interested in developing new ideas and new theories for the Left and not just rehasing the same old Marx/Lenin stuff. I am writing this here because I want specfically to know the right wingers here how open they would be to seriously examining and considering new theories that I and others might come up with.

For example:

The Post-Anarchy society: What it might look like.

[Bud Struggle]

As I said earlier, I am interested in developing new ideas and new theories for the Left and not just rehasing the same old Marx/Lenin stuff. I am writing this here because I want specfically to know the right wingers here how open they would be to seriously examining and considering new theories that I and others might come up with.

I've said this before: Capitalism has had it's day, it's still rules the world, but it's prerry obvious that it isn't evolving into any happy day when everyione will have a fair share of the pie. Too many lumps. Communism also had it's day, Das Kapital was a nice book and all of that--but it was a fantasy, everytime communism was tried (and it's been tried many times) it devolved into a RevLeft style Degenerate Worker State--nothing wrong with that, but it really doesn't work for all people again.

The answer surely is some sort of Welfare state with a definite provisions for those people that are achievers and those who are fuckups. Something like a world wide Social Democracy would suit the bill very nicely.

[Drace]

revleft style degenerate worker state--nothing wrong with that, but it really doesn't work for all people again.

lolol

[PostAnarchy]

lolol


:lol:

next?

[PostAnarchy]

And

cool story bro!!!!!!!!! :thumbup1:

[mykittyhasaboner]

As I said earlier, I am interested in developing new ideas and new theories for the Left and not just rehasing the same old Marx/Lenin stuff. I am writing this here because I want specfically to know the right wingers here how open they would be to seriously examining and considering new theories that I and others might come up with.

For example:

The Post-Anarchy society: What it might look like.
The reason why the left studies Marx is because what he wrote is still fundamentally applicable. Of course new theories should be made and analyzed but we shouldn't discard what someone else thought of simply because its old.








Communism also had it's day, Das Kapital was a nice book and all of that--but it was a fantasy, everytime communism was tried (and it's been tried many times) it devolved into a RevLeft style Degenerate Worker State--nothing wrong with that, but it really doesn't work for all people again.
That's simply untrue, some socialist societies were destroyed from external threats (ie Catalonia). Even if these societies in the end failed, does that mean we should disregard all their successes? (for example the increase in living standards, literacy, and access to healthcare in almost every socialist state/society) Just because an idea hasn't worked to its fullest yet, doesn't mean it wont ever work.

The answer surely is some sort of Welfare state with a definite provisions for those people that are achievers and those who are fuckups.Are you really so judgmental about people that you lump them into two ill-defined categories? Have you not considered that some of those "fuck-ups" never had a chance to achieve begin with? What of those who are achievers in there own right, but go against the status quo of the capitalist state? Are they to be lumped with the "fuck-ups?" Who are you to say that the "achievers" deserve more than the "fuck ups"? Sounds like a great quasi-social democratic welfare state. :rolleyes:


Something like a world wide Social Democracy would suit the bill very nicely.So even you say that capitalism isnt working very well, so the asnwer is a different type of capitalism, which also isn't working well? I really dont get your logic.

[Bud Struggle]

That's simply untrue, some socialist societies were destroyed from external threats (ie Catalonia). Even if these societies in the end failed, does that mean we should disregard all their successes? (for example the increase in living standards, literacy, and access to healthcare in almost every socialist state/society) Just because an idea hasn't worked to its fullest yet, doesn't mean it wont ever work. The progress isn't Communism--it's just progress. But in the end, Communism was tried lots of times--China, the SU, Eastern Europe, it just asn't worked well.




Are you really so judgmental about people that you lump them into two ill-defined categories? Nope, Definitely shades of gray.


Have you not considered that some of those "fuck-ups" never had a chance to achieve begin with? And there are those people--and they deserve to be given a chance.


What of those who are achievers in there own right, but go against the status quo of the capitalist state? Are they to be lumped with the "fuck-ups?" I'm not lumping--these people make their own bed. Good for them it it works.



Who are you to say that the "achievers" deserve more than the "fuck ups"? Sounds like a great quasi-social democratic welfare state. :rolleyes: The achievers deserve a little pittance for their troubles, don't you think?


So even you say that capitalism isnt working very well, so the asnwer is a different type of capitalism, which also isn't working well? I really dont get your logic.As someone once said in this post: "Just because an idea hasn't worked to its fullest yet, doesn't mean it wont ever work."

[Demogorgon]

I don't think you can call Capital fantasy based upon the failure of the attempts at Communism It is a book about capitalism after all and is pretty accurate.

I don't deny that twentieth century Communism did not quite go as planned, but it doesn't mean that Marx wasn't right much more often than he was wrong.

And yes, we need to be open to new ideas.

[danyboy27]

i think a more developed social democracy or socialism is actually the way it could be realisticly done.

mainly beccause it neither hate capitalism or communism, it actually exploit and use capitalism so their citizen could have a better life.

i think that the biggest problem for many supporter of both capitalism and communism, is that they see the other side has the problem, the ennemy, and they should do the complete opposite of the other, and when you think like that you simply remove any room for any compromise.

ready to get attacked from all side by both hardcore marxist and right libertarian, beccause mainly that what will happen in the next posts...i can feel it.

[Oneironaut]

As I said earlier, I am interested in developing new ideas and new theories for the Left and not just rehasing the same old Marx/Lenin stuff. I am writing this here because I want specfically to know the right wingers here how open they would be to seriously examining and considering new theories that I and others might come up with.

For example:

The Post-Anarchy society: What it might look like.

What do you mean by a Post-Anarchy society? If an anarchist/communist society was to be established, I can imagine no further evolution of society. Anarchism/communism advocates a contradiction free society where people would be liberated from all oppression and hierarchy and everyone begins on the same footing. Our concern is establishing this society, not some "Post-Anarchy society".

On another note, have you spent time reading Marx? I feel like you have skipped over him but I may be wrong. He offers the most comprehensive sociological perspective up to date. It only makes it that much more tremendous that it was written over 150 years ago. Marx's predictions have proven time and time again to be spot on. Marx's works have led to many different ideologies, and I am willing to bet that at least one of them suits your preference.

Likewise, I am no Leninist and there are plenty of other Marxists like myself who are opposed to the "top-down socialism" advocated by those comrades.

[PostAnarchy]

What do you mean by a Post-Anarchy society? If an anarchist/communist society was to be established, I can imagine no further evolution of society. Anarchism/communism advocates a contradiction free society where people would be liberated from all oppression and hierarchy and everyone begins on the same footing. Our concern is establishing this society, not some "Post-Anarchy society".

On another note, have you spent time reading Marx? I feel like you have skipped over him but I may be wrong. He offers the most comprehensive sociological perspective up to date. It only makes it that much more tremendous that it was written over 150 years ago. Marx's predictions have proven time and time again to be spot on. Marx's works have led to many different ideologies, and I am willing to bet that at least one of them suits your preference.

Likewise, I am no Leninist and there are plenty of other Marxists like myself who are opposed to the "top-down socialism" advocated by those comrades.

I mean a society after the anarchist revolution has been achieved. The Post-anarchy is just one of my personal slogan = post-revolution, basically.

What I meant by Marx is not treating it as a religion as some Stalinists and Marxists do. No doubt Marx said some many interesting and profound things; his analysis on capitalism for instance remains pertinent and even more pertinent now than it was back in the late 1800s. Particularly how he examined globalization. My point was however that Marx and the other great socialist thinkers were all flawed, said some bad things and also some things that need to be criticized and examined and re-examined forcefully and with vigor. I would never argue for one second nor I think could any serious revolutionary leftist that Marx had nothing to offer just not his works and that of any other "great man" should not be treated like some Red-Bible like, sadly, many leftists do.

[RGacky3]

The problem witht looking for new theories, in my mind is the problem with trying to build up any theories.

Anarchism and SOcialism are not theories, they are sets of principles that you can apply to different situations, now what might change is the tactics are application, but the basic priciples are there and have always been there.

As for marx and lenin those are 2 dudes, thats it, Marx wrote some good stuff, Lenin wrote some good stuff (his actions showed otherwise), but thats it, they are just 2 guys, and should be viewed as such.

We don't need new ideas perse, or new theories, we just need to apply them to the real world. We also need to stop following guys, individuals, or little red books.

This Post-Anarchy stuff, our goal is Anarchy, thats what we want, its like saying post freedom.

We know waht a post revolution might look like, and we've known for decades, a free and equal society, other than that we can't really tell simply because its free and equal and because of that its up to the people.

About Social-Democracy, I've said it before and I'll say it again, Social Democracy is Capitalim, but soft Capitalism, and it won't last because in global Capitalism the solf fall behind.


The progress isn't Communism--it's just progress. But in the end, Communism was tried lots of times--China, the SU, Eastern Europe, it just asn't worked well.

Nope nope nope, you know better than that, those places did not try communism, in fact most of those places crushed communism during their takovers.

What the left needs to do, once and for all, is for Gods sake Let Lenin go.

[RedKnight]

Again, as I've posted elsewhere, it will vary from country to country. Some anarchist societies will choose anarcho-syndicalism. While still others might want a mutualistic market economy, or an anarcho-communist gift economy. It all just depends on the people's will.

[danyboy27]

Again, as I've posted elsewhere, it will vary from country to country. Some anarchist societies will choose anarcho-syndicalism. While still others might want a mutualistic market economy, or an anarcho-communist gift economy. It all just depends on the people's will.

agreed :D